Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police Medal Awards

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are still waiting to receive the police long service and good conduct medal due to them.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): On 20th November, 1,788. Of these, 1,342 are officers who have been awarded medals since June this year.

Mr. Townsend: Can the Under-Secretary of State confirm that many police officers have had to wait over two years for these medals? Is it not a remarkable comment on the current administration of the home office that after 22 years' notice it still cannot produce a medal on time?

Dr. Summerskill: There has been a delay in delivery of these medals which has been due to production problems. These have now been overcome and delivery is being speeded up.

Radio Reception (Birmingham)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretrary of state for the Home Department what steps are being taken to widen and improve the reception of BBC Radio Birmingham.

Dr. Summerskill: There is no intention to extend the area over which the BBC's local radio station in Birmingham can be received.
Service in most of the area is good, but possible solutions to the problems of re-

ception in certain parts of Birmingham are being considered by the Home Office working party on local radio.

Mr. Miller: How can the Minister say that reception generally is good when 25 per cent. of the area covered by that radio station cannot receive it at all? Nearly £400,000 a year is being spent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must put his comment in the form of a question.

Mr. Miller: I asked the Minister how she can claim that reception is good.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was making a statement about how many can receive the broadcasts from the station.

Mr. Miller: I was about to ask how the Minister can claim that reception is good and how she can justify spending £400,000 when that station cannot be heard over such a large area.

Dr. Summerskill: As I said earlier, it is important to study Birmingham in relation to other parts of the country which also wish to have local radio. Birmingham is not the only place with local radio. The whole country's needs for local radio and frequencies must be considered. That is what is being done by the Home Office working party on local radio.

Mr. Litterick: Is my hon. Friend aware that her answer is almost precisely the same as that which I received three and a half years ago to the same question? Does she agree that the study to which she has referred is taking rather a long time, even by Home Office standards?

Dr. Summerskill: I cannot believe that it is three and a half years since this specific problem was examined. After all, local radio stations are still being set up. A further 18 were announced recently. I can assure all hon. Members who are interested in local radio generally that their areas are being considered by the Home Office working party in the context of a national system of local radio.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that her reply was disappointing because reception on the south side of Birmingham is very poor? Will she reverse the decision of the noble


Lord, the Minister of State, and agree to receive a deputation from Birmingham? The council of the Birmingham BBC local radio is frustrated and its members are considering resignation. I urge the Minister to agree to that request.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, I shall be pleased to receive a deputation from Birmingham or anywhere else. It would be helpful if hon. Members waited for the working party to report. At that time we shall have more evidence to discuss.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is the Minister aware that BBC Radio Birmingham was set up eight years ago? Is she further aware that during that time we have not been able to receive Radio Birmingham clearly? Is she aware that her answer today will be regarded as a mere fob off, as have all answers in the past eight years?

Dr. Summerskill: I am aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House have their individual problems with particular parts of their areas. That is exactly what is being examined.

Prison Service (Inquiry)

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the proceedings of the committee of inquiry into the prison service will be held in public.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I understand that, because principally of the pace of the inquiry, it is unlikely to conduct its proceedings in public. However, the chairman has already indicated that the inquiry will welcome representatives, and would hope that as many as possible of those submitting evidence will arrange to publish it.

Mr. Aitken: Does not the Home Secretary accept that the public have a right to know some of the central details of the issues involved here, such as the number of mentally sick people who are in prison and not receiving treatment? Since the right hon. Gentleman preaches about open government, should he not practise it with regard to this inquiry?

Mr. Rees: I could give the hon. Member now the figure he seeks. Sometimes I think that the information sought is

already available but that people who want it do not listen when it is given. That is not the nature of this inquiry, but all the information will be published, so there is not the slightest question of hiding it.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the inquiry be able to consider any aspect of the administration of drugs in prisons? If not, what measures has the Home Office taken to inquire into this matter in the light of the articles in the Prison Medical Journal? I thank my right hon. Friend for having placed that journal in the Library.

Mr. Rees: I would not prevent the matter from being examined, although I do not know whether it is germane to the investigation into administration. I am concerned about the subject and I have received a great deal of information about it. I want to make as much information as possible available on the matter so that there can be a proper discussion.

Mr. Beith: Are the terms of reference of the inquiry now available, and have they been made known to prison officers generally?

Mr. Rees: The terms of reference have been announced in a parliamentary answer. I do not know whether prison officers read those. They are, however, available. I have discussed the whole matter with prison officers, as I have with all those who participated.

Mrs. Renee Short: Since it is highly probable that the inquiry will make recommendations about working conditions for prison officers and about the conditions under which far too many prisoners are kept, especially in the old prisons, will my right hon. Friend say what he intends to do about those recommendations? Will he bear in mind that he has received similar recommendations over a period of years from Select Committees drawing attention to the appalling conditions for prisoners and prison officers? Will he get the money to put these defects right?

Mr. Rees: I believe that £20 million will be spent this year in that direction. Let me explain my concern. I visited a new prison last week, and I know of a number of prisons which have been extended. I am concerned to see whether


existing resources are being used properly. That is what the inquiry is all about.

Mr. David Howell: Now that a month has been lost in bringing together the inquiry team for the prison inquiry, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that it will be possible to meet the March target date for the report?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member should know better than most that these matters do not involve just telephoning a number of people. No time has been lost. Work started two or three weeks ago on the inquiry's support team. I still think that it is possible to meet that date, and that is what I have said publicly.

Vandalism

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fresh initiatives to deal with the problem of vandalism he proposes to take following his conference on the subject.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he is taking to reduce crimes of vandalism.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I held a conference last month bringing together representatives of Government Departments, local authority associations, the police and other interested bodie. We agreed that measures to counter vandalism are best planned and organised locally. The role of the Home Office is to provide support to local efforts through research, information and publicity. I and other Ministers propose to issue guidelines on good practice.

Mr. Sims: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's reply. Is he aware that, in contrast to some of the woolly thinking on the role of punishment in dealing with vandals, there is a general welcome for his own important statement that he has never been against the sharply administered wallop in dealing with this problem? Does he accept that this realistic approach is warmly welcome? Does it indicate some change in Government policy?

Mr. Rees: I was asked whether I had ever administered a wallop to any of my three sons. This was nothing to do with vandalism. The answer is"Yes ". I

kept it quiet, and I am sorry that it was made so public because all three are now capable of giving me a good wallop.

Mr. Jessel: Can the Home Secretary persuade the courts to make more use of short sharp detention sentences, and to fine the parents of young offenders?

Mr. Rees: I would not interfere with the courts in any way, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not indicating that he would. The judiciary is not controlled by the Home Office, and neither should it be.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend consider a more constructive proposal than is being made by the Opposition? Will he consider extending a variant of the community service order to vandals so that they can put something constructive back into the community?

Mr. Rees: It is for the courts to decide how to deal with vandals who appear before them. However, we have discovered two things in different parts of the country. There may be a lot of talk about vandalism in an area, but, when I ask about its extent, I find that only in a few places does anyone know with any accuracy. Second, many local authorities do not have centres at which vandalism can be reported, evaluated, or discussed with the education authority. The best local authorities are doing just that, in association with the police. I saw that in Halifax last week. The scheme is being carried out very well there, and other local authorities should copy it.

Mr. Whitelaw: As it is obvious that many different methods need to be applied, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated publicly, in dealing with the matter, is it not ludicrous for the Secretary of State for Social Services, in discussing these matters, to describe any policy of firmer regimes in detention centres as
consciously recruiting sadists and bullies to staff …prisons for children "?

Mr. Rees: A large number of the people who commit vandalism do not end up in prison, and the nature of their offence does not mean that they should. I agree with the CPRS report on this matter. The subject is complicated, and it is far too easy to say that vandalism


will be solved by a short sharp shock. In some areas it needs a bit of thought on the part of the local authorities to do something about it.

Mr. Ward: In view of my right hon. Friend's welcome comment, will he give an early reply to the fifteenth report of the Education, Arts and Home Office Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee which deals specifically with the short, sharp shock, and shows on strong evidence from prison governors and prison officers that it is futile and self-defeating?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly reply to that point, but we are discussing vandalism which presents a wide social problem. Although in one or two cases the solution to vandalism may be the short, sharp shock, it is much more complicated than that.

Animals (Experiments)

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce a licence and registration system for dealers in live animals for experiments.

Dr. Summerskill: There is already a voluntary accreditation and recognition scheme run by the Medical Research Council which covers both the breeding and supply for sale of animals for experimental purposes. However, the need for a statutory scheme and its practicability are under consideration.

Mr. Corbett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she assure the House that this matter will be pursued with vigour, given the attention devoted to it in the Daily Mirror? Is she aware that these grubby little animal snatchers are going around picking up otherwise unwanted pets and flogging them by the back door to otherwise reputable research establishments such as the St. George's medical school?

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have every sympathy for owners who wish to dispose of their pets but are worried about where they will eventually go. While we are looking at this matter, I advise them to seek the advice of the RSPCA or a veterinary surgeon.

Mr. Hooley: Is it not time that we had proper legislation on the subject of animal experiments, as the existing legislation is now more than 100 years out of date?

Dr. Summerskill: Although this matter is not relevant to the original Question, the subject of experiments on animals is being examined, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time recently.

Equal Opportunities Commission

Dr. McDonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have no immediate plans to do so. I met Lady Lockwood to discuss EOC matters last month.

Dr. McDonald: Will my right hon. Friend arrange to meet the chairman to discuss with her plans to ensure that the Government refuse contracts to employers who fail to comply with the Sex Discrimination Act, as has already happened with the Race Relations Act, thus showing that the Government take sex discrimination as seriously as they take racial discrimination?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly discuss that matter with Lady Lockwood.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: When the Home Secretary meets the chairman of the EOC, will he ask her to write to those chief constables who operate differential height requirements governing the entry of men and women into the police force in order to ensure a common standard?

Mr. Rees: The subject of height standards for the police is a matter for each chief constable. I am not sure that I want to add to my powers in this respect. I imagine it is considered that in handling some of the work carried out by the police, the size of a woman is not as important as the size of a man.

Nationality Law

Mr. Tilley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the White Paper on the nationality law.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I cannot yet say when we will be ready to publish a White Paper, but we hope to do so as soon as our consideration of the many issues involved has been completed.

Mr. Tilley: I am grateful for that reply, but, in view of the fears expressed following publication of the Green Paper, and since there is still some time before the publication of the White Paper, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to make clear that the Government do not intend to tamper through this intended legislation with the civic rights either of Commonwealth citizens who are settled here or of their children who are born here?

Mr. John: My hon. Friend has that absolute assurance.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the Minister understand that the House is getting a little tired of the dilatory manner in which the Home Office deals with most matters—whether involving local radio, taxicabs or nationality? How much longer must the House wait for the Government's views on nationality?

Mr. John: Representations about this important and complex matter are still coming in. However dilatory we have been, we have not been as dilatory as has the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) in producing what he said was a draft Bill which was on the stocks when the Tory Government left office in 1974.

Police (Allegations and Complaints)

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a judical inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, into allegations and complaints that the police in areas of London, the West Midlands and Wolverhampton are infiltrated by Fascists.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Home Secretary agree that these grave allegations, which were made at the Labour Party conference, are of concern to the whole nation, and that the nation will be able to decide the truth of these allegations only if the evidence is considered in public?

Mr. Rees: In reply to the suggestion that the police force is infiltrated by Fascist sympathisers, I must tell the House that there are means of investigating such matters which are quite expeditious. [HON. MEMBERS:"How? "] It is done under legislation passed by this House. That is the way in which these matters should be investigated.

Mrs. Renee Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is referring to what I said at the Labour Party conference when replying to a debate on immigration and racialism? However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that I did not say what the hon. Gentleman has implied. I did not say that the Wolverhampton police were infiltrated by Fascists. What I said was that it is not acceptable that the police should be infiltrated by Fascist sympathisers. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that to be the case, although it appears that the hon. Gentleman does not.

Licensing Laws

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce measures to implement the Erroll committee's report on liquor licensing.

Dr. Summerskill: I see no prospect of Government legislation on this subject during the present Session.

Mr. Knox: As it is now six years since the Erroll committee reported, why have not the Government implemented its findings? If it was right to implement the findings of the Clayson committee on Scottish licensing laws, surely it is also right to implement similar proposals relating to the English licensing laws. There is plenty of time this Session.

Dr. Summerskill: I believe that since the Erroll report, the position has changed in that offences of drunkenness have increased and there is greater public concern over the problem of alcoholism. Furthermore, we have had the report of the Government's advisory committee on alcoholism and also the report of the Expenditure Committee on preventive medicine. Both those reports recommended against the implementation of the Erroll committee recommendations.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the implementation of the Blennerhassett report is far more important than the implementation of Erroll?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes‥

Sir Bernard Braine: Is the hon. Lady aware that alcohol is an established common factor in the rising tide of violent crime, death and injury on the road and violence within the family, and that we are also faced, as she has already admitted, with a distressing increase in the illness of alcoholism? Will she continue to resist most strongly any suggestion that the Erroll committee's recommendations to tinker about with the licensing laws should be implemented? Will she also confirm, for the benefit of the House and the nation, that in general the police, the magistrates and the licensing trade are opposed to such tinkering?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of certain facts which are important in considering this matter. I think that I can leave it to him to convert his hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox).

Television Licences

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has plans to abolish television licences.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir.

Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the licence fee as it now stands imposes a heavy burden on low income groups? Is it not true that, if BBC revenue were collected through direct taxation, State pensioners would not have to pay any contribution at all? Will he now look to a redistribution of wealth in this fashion?

Mr. Rees: There are a number of factors to be considered. There is strong resistance to this idea in the BBC, which genuinely believes that it would be under far more control by the Government. Furthermore, such a proposal would take £300 million in total public expenditure. I do not believe that we could erect a system under which every year in the PESC discussions we would be looking for a sum of £20 million out of revenue to be put elsewhere. All these factors have to be considered. I am prepared to consider

the suggestion, but it is not an easy matter.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a partial refund in respect of unexpired licences, provided that it is fully costed so that no extra expense is put on public funds?

Mr. Rees: I have examined that suggestion once or twice in the past three or four years. However, the extra cost involved, given the necessary computerisation, is large. Such a suggestion may look attractive when seen from outside, but the imposition of substantial extra cost must be considered. I am prepared to show the hon. Gentleman the results of the investigations into this proposal.

Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the external services of the BBC already receive a grant-in-aid and that they are not told what to do by the Foreign Office? Furthermore, we do not tell the Arts Council or the Queen how to spend their money. If the will exists, this proposal can be implemented. Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement last week of a 20 per cent. increase in the television licence fee—far greater than the increase at Ford's—did not satisfy the BBC, the unions, the viewers or many Members of this House?

Mr. Rees: I think that the BBC would have settled for a Ford-type increase over the past three years compared wth what it has received. My hon. Friend might like to see a scheme which has been carried out by the local authority in the city of Wakefield. It is an excellent scheme, and all our problems would be ended if local authorities carried out such schemes throughout the country.

Mr. Peter Walker: In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about preserving the freedom of the BBC, is that not a bogus idea when we consider that the BBC's application for an increase in the fee is rejected by the Government and is fixed at a different figure by the Government? Is he aware that there is resentment among many elderly people who recognise that some people in certain types of accommodation are given rebate when others in different types of accommodation are not, and especially when it is known that those who do not receive rebate are the loneliest people who are most in need of television? Will the right


hon. Gentleman consider carefully the step he is taking?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I hope that he has taken into account what about 65 local authorities are doing already. I cannot accept that the argument is bogus. It may be one with which the right hon. Gentleman disagrees. I disagree with him about the nature of the silly local government reform which he carried out. But I do not regard that as bogus—I just regard it as daft.

Mr. Ashley: My right hon. Friend should consider making statutory provision to help old-age pensioners and people on low incomes with their licence fees, but does he agree that the licence fee is vital if the BBC is to remain independent? Is he aware that if a Government, of whatever political complexion, sought to exercise control over, or undue influence upon, the BBC we should be well on the way to the totalitarian State? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that we must maintain the freedom of the BBC and the broadcasting authorities generally from any form of Government influence?

Mr. Rees: I do not regard my hon. Friend's argument as bogus. I accept that many people disagree with him.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are many people who would agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), not least the Annan committee, which made it perfectly clear that the licence fee was the best method of financing the BBC? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that any system which in any way removed the independence of the BBC would be extremely dangerous for the whole of the operations of the BBC?

Mr. Rees: It is dangerous. I believe that the scheme operated by some local authorities would deal with the problem about which many of us are concerned.

Television (X Certificate Films)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to introduce legislation to prohibit the exhibition on television of films certified in the X category as unsuit-

able for exhibition to persons under the age of 18 years in cinemas.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. Legislation of the kind my hon. Friend envisages would conflict with the Government's declared policy that the provision and content of programmes should be the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities.

Mr. Tuck: What is the sense of prohibiting the showing of X films to teenagers under 18 in cinemas yet allowing them to see the same films on television in their homes? Is she aware that it is no answer to say that these films are not screened until 10.30 p.m. because, as she knows, kids of 17 do not go to bed at 10.30 p.m.? If my hon. Friend will not go all the way with me, will she at least adopt the recommendations of paragraphs 104 and 116 of the Annan report, rather than treat us to the unconvincing explanation in paragraph 106 of the White Paper?

Dr. Summerskill: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House would not want to interfere with the content of programmes. I am sure that they would not wish to see legislation which provided for Government intervention, which is what my hon. Friend is asking for. On the other hand, the White Paper recognises that the IBA and the BBC have a responsibility for programme standards. We are suggesting a broadcasting complaints commission and more accountability, via such organisations, to the public.

Mr. Sims: Will the hon. Lady discuss with the broadcasting authorities the possibility of giving some protection and guidance to parents and children by reproducing the rating given to a film by the British Board of Film Censors in the radio and television periodicals and in newspaper summaries of programmes?

Dr. Summerskill: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will bring that very good suggestion to the notice of the BBC and the IBA. I hope that other hon. Members with similar suggestions will do the same.

Mr. Ovenden: Will my hon. Friend resist any suggestion that what we can watch on television should be geared to the needs of 12-year-olds? Will she make it clear that the Government will not force all of us to watch"Blue Peter "


all night just because some people do not send their kids to bed at the right time?

Dr. Summerskill: This discussion illustrates that there is a variety of opinion and taste among hon. Members as to what they want to see. It is up to the IBA and the BBC to decide what it is best to do, in the light of recommendations.

Parole Board

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now seek to change the rules so that the Parole Board can give its reasons for refusing an application for parole.

Dr. Summerskill: Before reaching a decision on the desirability of giving reasons, about which we shall need to enter into various consultations, we are awaiting the results of a feasibility experiment by a number of local review committees. This is necessary because the majority of parole refusals result from recommendations of local review committees, not from those of the Parole Board.

Mr. Marten: Could not the prison governor have the prisoner in his office to explain the reasons why parole—however the decision is arrived at—is being refused, so that the prisoner will know what he can do better if he is doing something wrong?

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that there is a strong argument for giving reasons. The problem is that the Parole Board does not always find it very easy to itemise the reasons in a clear and concise way. That is what we are looking into.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What safeguard is there against prisoners having parole refused because wrong information has become attached to their files?

Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend can give me an example of this happening I shall be pleased to look into it.

Miss Fookes: Will the Minister institute an inquiry into the entire parole system, as recommended by the Expenditure Committee report on prisons, which committee reported almost three months ago? Is the Minister aware that we are eagerly awaiting an answer to this report?

Dr. Summerskill: We are looking at the report now. There will be an answer as soon as possible.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my hon. Friend say when the consultations with the local review bodies are likely to be completed and whether the results of those consultations will be published? Can she give a clear idea of what form this feasibility study is taking?

Dr. Summerskill: The local review committee inquiry will, we hope, be able to report to the Home Office early in the new year. Following that, we shall need to have consultations with the Parole Board to see whether it is possible to set up a parole system in which reasons are given.

Crimes

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of crimes committed during the past 12 months for which figures are available (a) against the person and (b) against property in the whole of the United Kingdom and the North-West.

Mr. John: Since regional breakdowns of criminal statistics are published only for the calendar year, the latest readily available 12-month figures are for 1977. In that year the police in England and Wales recorded 103,503 indictable offences against the person and 2,533,014 against property. The corresponding figures for the North-West region were 12,966 and 360,518 respectively.

Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister aware that in the years since the last war—during which time the major parties in this House have shared power equally—indictable offences under Socialist Administrations have risen twice as fast as under Conservative Administrations? Does he accept that this is because the creed of Socialism does not believe in a property-owning democracy or in the rights of responsible and civilised individuals?

Mr. John: For the first time I now know who writes the"Peter Simple"column. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the past year offences against the person in Cheshire went down by 1 per cent. Is that not a


great triumph for the Labour Government?

Mr. Winterton: Cheshire is Tory-controlled.

Mr. James Lamond: Is my hon. Friend encouraged in his work by the fact that the crime rate in the greater Manchester area has fallen sharply, particularly in respect of the number of murders?

Mr. John: The figures for crime fluctuate wildly from year to year. I do not believe that there are any simple solutions to this problem, nor any easy and cheap triumphs to be got. The rate of increase in the crime figures in the past year has been very small.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Minister aware that, according to figures published by his own Department, 83 per cent. of reported burglaries in the London area are never cleared up? [AN HON. MEMBER:"Those areas are Tory-controlled."] Perhaps I should add that this figure has been about the same for the past 10 years. Although it might not be right to say, on the basis of those figures, that there has been a breakdown of law and order, was it not absolutely right of Sir Robert Mark to draw attention to these grave matters?

Mr. John: To draw attention to the matter is one thing, but Sir Robert's opinion of the facts that he disclosed was contradicted by the present Commissioner. The average clear-up rate in England and Wales is 78 per cent. for offences against the person and 37 per cent. for offences against property. In the North-West, which featured in the original Question, the figures are 82 per cent. and 42 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Loyden: Will my hon. Friend resist the erroneous argument that has been presented by the Opposition—namely, that the reason for increasing crime rates lies in whether control is in Labour or Conservative hands? Does he agree that the correlation between crime and unemployment, bad housing conditions and bad environments is a more important factor? We should be tackling the solutions to these problems to reduce crime in the areas so affected.

Mr. John: I need no encouragement from my hon. Friend to dismiss as con-

temptible the argument that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winter-ton) tried to put forward. It is too reminiscent of Saatchi amp; Saatchi to be true. The various conditions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) referred play a part in the crime rate. However, I should be chary of placing all the blame for the crime rate on unemployment. It is my experience that a number of those who have advantageous material conditions are nevertheless prone to crime.

Chilean Refugees

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about aid for Chilean refugees in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Summerskill: Representations have been received from the British Council for Aid to Refugees and the Joint Working Group for Aid to Refugees from Chile in Britain about the level of grant paid to the latter. In addition, 15 letters, to similar effect, have been received from various organisations and individuals.

Mr. Canavan: Will my hon. Friend help to ensure that adequate provision is made for the 3,000 Chilean refugees in this country by increasing the grant from the Voluntary Services Unit to the Joint Working Group for Refugees, especially in view of Government statements to the effect that the refugee programme is one of the most important elements in our support for human rights in Chile and the rest of Latin America?

Dr. Summerskill: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the grant has increased from 1974 when it was £27,000. It has increased annually and for the present year it is £137,500. There are continual meetings with the organisation concerned and there may be some scope for a small additional grant. That is now being examined.

Mr. Whitney: Will the Under-Secretary of State be prepared to be similarly generous to refugees from the Soviet Union or other Communist regimes?

Dr. Summerskill: Our record of giving aid to refugees from wherever they come is extremely creditable both in financial terms and in general assistance.

Age of Criminal Responsibility

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to lower the age of criminal responsibility.

Mr. John: No, Sir. It would, in my view, be a retrograde step to lower the present age of 10 years, fixed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, below which it is conclusively presumed in law that a child cannot be guilty of any offence.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is the Minister aware that in the Metropolitan Police area alone during 1977, 675 under 10-yearolds were arrested for offences of violence and taking and driving away, apart from all other offences? What possible justification is there for treating a 9-year-old differently from a 10-year-old?

Mr. John: The younger the child the less he is presumed to know the consequences of his act. If a child under 10 years of age is in that position, care and control proceedings may be taken. I have not yet heard from those who advocate the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility to what age they would take their own limit. Would they imprison children of 5 and 6?

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend be prepared to examine instances where it appears that children under the age of criminal responsibility are being manipulated by those who are above that age? A serious problem is being created for the police.

Mr. John: The police are dealing with that problem. If the children concerned are beyond parental control, they may be brought before the courts as in need of care and control.

Firemen

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the recruitment of part-time firemen.

Dr. Summerskill: Under the Fire Services Act 1947, the recruitment of firemen is a matter for individual fire authorities, which decide on the number of whole-time or part-time firemen they need to recruit to discharge their statutory responsibilities.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Lady give a categorical assurance that regardless of representations from the Fire Brigades Union the Government will do nothing to interfere with the rights of local authorities to recruit firemen full-time or part-time as they, the local authorities, see fit?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, I can give that assurance. It is entirely a matter for the fire authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUC

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the leaders of the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I meet representatives of the TUC from time to time, at NEDC and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the Prime Minister aware that on Tuesday the Secretary of State for Employment said that there were no sanctions available to the Government against the TUC despite that organisation's 21 per cent. pay rise? Is he aware that the Government pay the TUC £1 million a year to train shop stewards—I suppose to start strikes at Fords—and that the general council of the TUC has 180 quango posts between it? Why not axe that lot?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of those factors, but I still do not think that it would be sensible to take action in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes—[HON. MEMBERS:"Why not? "]—As I understand it, the Opposition are interested in why not. That is because I make my point and the Government take their action to control inflation, whereas the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) presses his case merely to make a political point.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the closure of Times Newspapers Limited from midnight tonight is a matter of grave concern to the TUC printing industries committee? Is he prepared to make a direct approach to the management to persuade it to lift the closure threat and to allow full negotiations to proceed in a proper fashion?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has been making a number of


representations in his anxiety to try to get the closure stopped. I am grateful to him for the letter that he wrote. I have consulted the Secretary of State for Employment to ascertain whether any intervention would be valuable. As far as my right hon. Friend can, he will be reporting to the House later this afternoon in the emergency debate that has been arranged.

Mrs. Thatcher: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has already decided to impose sanctions on the Ford 17 per cent. settlement and that British Leyland workers are today voting on a wage offer of 17 per cent., will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to treat the two companies in the same way?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course the two companies will be treated the same. I am not sure that the headlines contained in the newspapers exactly represent the offer. I do not know whether it has occurred to the right hon. Lady, in her anxiety about the matter, that it has always been part of the White Paper provisions that genuine productivity deals are allowed. I understand from the proposals that have been put forward and that will be examined that the offer made by Leyland's contains a substantial and important productivity element.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister will recollect that that was the argument on the part of Fords. Is the right hon. Gentleman still saying that with two major car companies each settling at 17 per cent. he proposes to treat them dif-and in the other case he advised Government Departments not to buy cars because the company settled at 17 per cent. and in the other cases he advises Government Departments to buy cars because the other company settled at 17 per cent.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady's questions show how important it is for her to be extremely careful about the facts before she stirs up unnecessary industrial trouble. If she examines the make-up of the pay claims she will see that there are a number of elements in the Leyland settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will consider. The treatment will be exactly the same. I suggest that at some time when the right hon. Lady asks a question she indicates that she is in favour of Government action to try to keep prices

down. When she says that she will be more in tune with the views of the British people.

Mrs. Thatcher: I entirely agree that we require Government action to keep prices down. Indeed, I regard 8 per cent. inflation as a disgrace. One of the reasons that we cannot go into Europe is that the Prime Minister is not prepared to take the requisite action to get it down further, as some of our partners in Europe are.

The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady for echoing the words that I have used, although do not think that I have ever used the word"disgrace ". I think that 8 per cent. is too high. I am very glad indeed to see that the right hon. Lady is a sinner come to repentance. I recall that when she and her Administration left office, inflation was twice as high and was going up. Now it has come down.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIENNA

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Vienna.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to visit Vienna—to my regret.

Mr. Penhaligon: But has the Prime Minister studied the recent Austrian referendum on nuclear power? Will he take this opportunity to reiterate the Government's promise that a public inquiry will be held into a fast-breeder reactor if an application to build another one is made? Furthermore, will he extend that public relations exercise to a genuine one—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) must relate his question to Vienna. We are not on the broad issue of policy here. Open questions come later. This Question is about a visit to Vienna.

Mr. Penhaligon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Austrians held a referendum on the question of nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Truro was referring to something in this country, I believe.

The Prime Minister: May I say to the hon. Member for Truro, if it will help him, that I shall be very glad indeed to


pay an official visit to Vienna. He might care to come with me and see what success a Labour Government have in that country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lamond. The question must relate to Vienna.

Mr. James Lamond: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the proposals tabled by the Soviet Union at the Vienna talks on 8th June of this year have not yet been replied to? Since the Foreign Office described them as very constructive two or three months ago, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is time we took some initiative, especially as he spoke so strongly about the necessity to advance these talks, when speaking at the Special Session of the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: There, is unfortunately, always a long interval between the replies that Governments make to each other at these international conferences. The Soviet Union took rather a long time to reply to the propositions that the West had put forward. One of the basic difficulties here is that the Soviet Union insists that in the central area of Europe manpower is roughly the same on both sides. That proposition is not accepted by the West. We believe that Soviet armed manpower is far larger than that of the West, and we have to try to get the data right before we can get further on negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mrs. Hayman: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 30th November.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mrs. Hayman: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time today to study the question of the declining trend in this country's perinatal mortality rates over the past 25 years in relation to other European nations? Will he look at what can be done to reverse this

disturbing trend, particularly in relation to improving neo-natal services within the National Health Service?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for informing me of a matter in which she is particularly interested. The perinatal mortality rate has come down substantially in this country. It varies against the rate in a number of European countries. It is higher than some but lower than others. The Minister could give my hon. Friend a table if she wished to see it.
The most worrying factor is the discrepancy between the regions of this country. Mortality seems to be highest in the areas of great industrial conurbations and lowest in the more rural areas. This undoubtedly reflects differences in the environment, and it is to that, as well as to diet and other matters, that we must pay attention.

Mr. Michael Latham: Reverting to the question of sanctions and Ford's, will the Prime Minister explain why it was, in the words of Ministers, not appropriate to have sanctions on Ford 12 months ago, whereas it is appropriate now? Could it be related to the Bridgend factory?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a smear that is hardly worthy of him. But I suppose the real answer must be that the reason we started on it this year is that we were converted by the complaints of the Opposition last year that we had not taken action against Ford's.

Mr. Pavitt: Reverting to the question of perinatal mortality, will my right hon. Friend seek to co-ordinate the efforts in the inner city areas and the efforts of the Department of Health and Social Services in areas where there are large ethnic minorities, in order to assist what is now being done concerning languages to help the mothers concerned?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has sent to the regional chairmen of the health authorities details of the perinatal mortality rates in their areas. He has asked them to continue to look at these matters with a view to putting forward specific policies for improvement in the areas which are worst affected. This is a serious issue. We are not doing


as well as some other countries, although we have had a substantial improvement. We should certainly ask the health authorities to make this a priority matter.

Mr. Watt: Will one of the ministerial colleagues that the Prime Minister says he will be meeting today be the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? If so, will the Prime Minister assure that gentleman that he is firmly behind him in his stand to make sure that the fishermen get a decent deal from the EEC?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I fortunately met my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the Cabinet meeting this morning. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister is in good and rude health.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Reverting once again to the question of perinatal mortality rates, will the Prime Minister be very chary about accepting statistics in this respect? We in this country are very accurate in the statistics that we put forward, and other countries might not be making comparisons on exactly the same basis as ourselves.

The Prime Minister: This is one of the things that I was warned about. I was informed that the league table approach to national performance is somewhat misleading. But at least it is a guide. I think that the best guide for us, for which we can at least claim some credit, is that since the introduction of the Health Service in 1948—and all our statistics are prepared on the same basis—the number of deaths per 1,000 live and still births has gone down from 38.5 per 1,000 to 17 per 1,000. That is a tribute to the work of the Health Service.

Mr. Churchill: The Prime Minister has spoken of the importance of productivity deals. Will he say what steps he and his Administration are taking to monitor existing productivity deals, and in particular in the case of the miners? As the Prime Minister well knows, this year the miners received a 36.5 per cent. pay increase. Will he explain what action he proposes to take in the light of the fact that less than one-tenth of that sum has been earned in increased productivity?

The Prime Minister: I do not propose to go into this matter myself. If the hon. Gentleman has any questions to put to my

right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, no doubt he will do so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue the vendetta of his family against the miners—[Interruption.]—at Tonypandy for the third generation.

Hon. Members: Cheap!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Noble.—[Interruption.] Order. Mr. Mike Noble, next Question.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) wait until after Questions? [Interruption.] Order. It will not be long. We shall return to it after Questions. Mr. Mike Noble—next Question.

Mr. Noble: Question No. Q5 to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: rose—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members: Cheap!

Mr. Churchill: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that the hon. Member for Stretford will have an opportunity to raise a point of order after Questions. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: rose[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even when hon. Members feel indignant, they must—[HON. MEMBERS:"Dishonourable."] Order. We must try to keep to the rules of order. The Prime Minister will answer this Question and then we shall have points of order after the supplementary question. [Interruption.] Order. It is impossible to conduct our affairs if hon. Members do not listen to the Chair when I make a request. We shall come back to that matter shortly.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Winston Churchill, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for the Prime Minister to withdraw his wholly false smear accusation against my late grandfather, whose vendetta was against not the miners, but the Nazis?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Business Question. Mrs. Thatcher.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, on reflection, that it would be sensible and wise to withdraw a cheap and totally unnecessary slur?

The Prime Minister: The actions of the late Sir Winston Churchill in Tonypandy are a matter of historical dispute. I take one side of the quarrel. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman takes another side of that quarrel. I can only tell him what we in South Wales feel about the actions that were taken on that occasion.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) will not pursue a vendetta against the miners.

Mr. Brittan: That was not what you said.

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That was not what I said. The hon. Gentleman knows very well what I said. I am asking the hon. Gentleman not to pursue a vendetta against the miners of South Wales or anywhere else, and by the nature of his questions he appears to be doing so.

Mr. Churchill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is seeking to advance a hoary old chestnut of Socialism by suggesting that the late Sir Winston Churchill sent troops to Tonypandy when the right hon. Gentleman should very well know that it was Sir Winston Churchill who detrained them at Didcot and sent instead policemen from the Metropolis. It was completely unjustifiable for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the late Sir Winston Churchill sent troops, which was the implication behind his remarks.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Heller: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any further points of order on that matter. The hon. Member for Stretford has had the last word.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If those who seek to raise points of order after I have

already said that I do not propose to take further points of order on this matter feel that they can be helpful and not stir up trouble—[Interruption.] Order. I know that it is a matter of judgment. I do not want us to have a slanging match without coming to any conclusion.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stretford made his reply to the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wishes to say anything more. I shall call him if he does.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Whitelaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order, Mr. Whitelaw.

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that this will be a helpful point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have heard it said before, and the Prime Minister will have heard it said, that slurs on people who are dead are not advisable in the House. That has frequently been said before. Does the Prime Minister agree that a slur of this nature on someone who is dead is unfortunate and that he should realise it and not go on with it?

The Prime Minister: If I had thought that the remark was untruthful, I would not have made it. The record of the late Sir Winston Churchill in that dispute is a matter which is and continues to be deeply felt in South Wales. [Interruption.] There is no need for Opposition Members to try to make up to the hon. Member for Stretford for having voted against him in the defence committee.
As regards Sir Winston Churchill's record, there is no need for me to add any words to what I am known to feel about him or his services to the country. That is well known. I have said it myself on previous occasions and I have no hesitation in saying it again. However, there is a particular issue here which is unresolved at the bar of history, even now.

Mr. Hefter: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously you wish us to be helpful. I assure you that I wish


to be nothing but helpful. This is an entirely different point of order, but it is true to say that it may arise out of circumstances that we have just witnessed.
After my right hon. Friend had made a statement and there had also been a statement by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), a great baying noise came from the Opposition and you, Mr. Speaker, drew this fact to the attention of Labour Members. I found that very strange indeed.
I ask that in future you ask the 73 per cent. of public schoolboys on the Opposition side of the House to behave not like street corner boys but to behave —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an unexpected contribution. The House should listen to the hon. Member.

Mr. Heller: I should like Opposition Members to behave—I shall finish on this point, Mr. Speaker—on the basis of the type of education that they have received.

Hon Members: They are.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) also want to be helpful? He nods his head. I shall make an act of faith.

Mr. Kinnock: As long as you do not expect me, Mr. Speaker, to make an act of contrition. I wish to say, on an entirely helpful point of order, how much I admire your great dispassion, Mr. Speaker, as I know that you come from Tonypandy. Secondy, there have been certain inaccuracies perpetrated, and as the House must make a judgment on these things—as, indeed, you do, Mr. Speaker—it might be as well to correct one or two misapprehensions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the point at which the hon. Gentleman ceases to be helpful.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can rise only to a further point of order. We do not want a recital of history—from anyone.

Mr. Kinnock: I fully appreciate that, Mr. Speaker—except that we have had one version of history this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Our trouble is that we have had two versions.

Mr. Rhodes James: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a fair chance. The House is waiting to move on to a very important debate. I call the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). I hope that he will be helpful as well.

Mr. Rhodes James: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The events of 1910 and 1911 are indeed a matter of controversy, but I hope that this House and you, Mr. Speaker, will recognise that the actions taken by the then Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]—were matters of great restraint. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is pursuing the argument.
I suggest to the House that we leave the matter. I never thought that the day would come when a pupil of Tonypandy grammar school would have the last word between both sides of this place on such a matter. I believe that it is to the mutual advantage of this House to leave the matter there.

CBI

Mr. Noble: Q5. Mr. Noble asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

The Prime Minister: I meet representatives of the CBI from time to time, at NEDC and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the synthetic anger of the official Opposition about the Ford situation? When he next meets representatives of the CBI, will he take them on a guided tour of the House of Commons car parks where they will be able to count the number of foreign cars owned by Opposition Members? [Interruption.] A substantial minority, if not an absolute majority, have imported cars from abroad.

The Prime Minister: I well understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not think that I shall take that particular course. When I meet CBI representatives I shall be very anxious to discuss with them the points which they put to me in a letter which I received today in which they say that, as far as they know, half a million workers have settled within the Government's 5 per cent. guidelines. But they wish to discuss with me—[An HON. MEMBER:"That is not true."] If it is not true, the hon. Gentleman must take it up with the CBI. I do not want to fan any more quarrels between the CBI and the Opposition. I wish them well. The CBI wishes to discuss with me some better arrangements for settling pay in the long term. In its letter it also states that it is fully behind the Government in their plans, progress and determination to keep down inflation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week, please?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 4TH DECEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: debate on a motion to take note of the 1st to 10th reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1977-78, and the related Treasury minute and the Northern Ireland memorandum.
Motions on the European Assembly constituencies orders for England, Wales and for Scotland.
TUESDAY 5TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Education Bill.
Motions on the Social Security (Contribution, Re-rating) Order and on the (Earnings Limits) Amendment Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 6TH DECEMBER—Remaining stages of the Public Lending Right Bill.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY 7TH DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: the House will be asked

to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
There will be a debate on the unjust and arbitrary use of sanctions on industry, on a motion for the Adjournment.
FRIDAY 8TH DECEMBER—Pri Vale Members' motions.
MONDAY 11TH DECEMBER—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, motions on the Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Shops (Northern Ireland) Order.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Lord President will be aware that we used to have the public expenditure White Paper published before Christmas. As it is rather important this year, may we expect to have it before Christmas?

Mr. Foot: We shall do our best, but I cannot make an absolute promise. I am not at all sure that it will be before Christmas, but I shall look at the point and discuss the matter with the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Times on Monday to the effect that the House would be rising on 15th December? How is it that The Times knows this before hon. Members? Or is it a case of guessing again, rather like the General Election of October this year that never was?

Mr. Foot: I would not wish, on such a day, to say anything derogatory of The Times I regard the closure of The Times as a most tragic event. But The Times does not always get its facts right. There has been no decision yet about the time at which we shall rise for the Christmas Recess. I hope that we shall not have to go into the week starting on 18th December, but I cannot be sure.

Mrs. Bain: In view of the decline in the Scottish economy and the vast number of redundancies which are threatened in Scotland, in Massey-Ferguson and in Marathon and the shipbuilding industry in general, will the Leader of the House now set his mind to reconvening the Scottish Select Committee to look at the Scottish economy, since that Committee has not met at any stage since he became Leader of the House?

Mr. Foot: I shall look at that question, although I am not sure that that is the best way to deal with the problem.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be inappropriate for a much longer time to elapse before the House has a major and proper opportunity to consider energy policy? May we have a debate in the fairly near future?

Mr. Foot: I certainly cannot promise it before the Christmas Recess, but I shall bear it in mind amongst the other general topics for which there is strong competition.

Mr. Beith: Will the Leader of the House give the Opposition Front Bench an opportunity to reconsider the arrangements for Thursday's debate on Ford sanctions so that we could have a motion before the House setting out some alternative policies rather than have a debate on the Adjournment, in which we can all interpret the vote as we choose?

Mr. Foot: It may be—though I hope not—that the hon. Gentleman's influence with the Opposition Front Bench is greater than mine.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mellish.

Mr. Mellish: I was going to ask exactly the same question.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member will get the same answer.

Mr. Foot: I am happy to give my right hon. Friend the same answer.

Mr. Mellish: But I do not know the Opposition Front Bench like the Liberals do.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on his decision to make rapid progress with the Public Lending Right Bill. Will he consider providing time for a debate before Christmas on early-day motion no. 52 and, in particular, the amendment thereto standing in my name, which is about Maplin Sands and the question of aircraft noise?
[That this House, noting how the operation of the four existing London airports imposes a heavy burden of noise disturbance upon the centres of popula-

tion in or near which they are situated, and that every intensification of their use imposes an additional burden upon that population, deeply regrets that Her Majesty's Government should be proposing yet further expansion of these airports; and declares that there is no acceptable solution of the problem of aircraft noise, in spite of all technical advances and procedural mitigations, except the development of a coastal airport for London.]

Mr. Foot: I cannot give a promise on the second matter, but I am happy to accept the congratulations on the first.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In relation to the question of Thursday's business, which has been raised from the Liberal Bench, if the official Opposition table a motion on Thursday may I have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that he will allow us to debate and vote on that motion and will not attempt to amend it?

Mr. Foot: No such innocent request has ever been put from that Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Kinnoek: In view of the interest that the House has in accuracy and in the removal of secrecy where it is totally unnecessary, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate, next week if possible, on the matters that have just been of interest to the House, in order that we can establish firmly that, whilst police were sent into Tonypandy on that ill-famed day, it took another three days for the troops to be sent in and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was somewhat inaccurate in saying that the vendetta was against miners, since among the worst casualties of that day were women and children?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case, not putting a question.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for us to have at least a two-day debate on the national interest in the next Session of Parliament, because when Vauxhall and British Leyland have settled above 5 per cent. presumably it will be Government policy that all public corporations should buy foreign cars?

Mr. Foot: All these matters will be open for debate next Thursday, and. I am sure, on future occasions as well.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the Prayer against the television licence order is to be debated within the 40 days, it must be debated during the week after next. Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that time will be made available during that week for that debate?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is right about the calculations, but I cannot give such a promise. There is great pressure about the subjects for debate during this period, and many of my hon. Friends must look to the representations which have been made in the last week or two which we are seeking to accommodate.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is nearly a fortnight since the Prime Minister informed the House that the Cabinet was considering what further action would be taken on the Bingham report. Has the Leader of the House any statement to make on that?

Mr. Foot: We are not yet in a position to make a statement, but I hope very much that we shall be able to make a statement on the subject next week.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider as a matter of urgency having a debate next week on co-operatives in order to discuss the position of the Co-operative Development Agency and the aspirations of many workers, including those at Tri-ang Pedigree who will lose their jobs, who want to form a co-operative? At the same time we might also discuss the very strange decision to give more money to private enterprise and to hand over the workers' co-operative at KME to its tender mercies instead of going through the NEB. Will my right hon. Friend consider this as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise the particular debate to which my hon. Friend has referred. But he will know that there have been occasions when these matters have been debated. As to Tri-ang, he will know that discussions are proceeding about any possibility of a co-operative there, although he will also know about the competing demands for those same resources.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the Leader of the House consider a debate about the fact that we now know that there are 5,000 vacancies for skilled workers in the North-West alone? Will he consider whether we should have an urgent discussion on this extraordinary paradox and on the failure of the training programme, both governmental and private, to produce sufficient skilled workers amidst 1½ million unemployed?

Mr. Foot: The feature of our industrial situation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman draws attention is a very important one indeed. It is precisely because the Government pay attention to it that over the past three or four years we have asked the House to vote more money for training than ever before in British history. It is because of action taken largely by the Government that we have maintained the training places. It is still not sufficient to meet the demand for skilled workers and, therefore, we must expand those services in the future. But the idea that the Government have not been working on this over the past three or four years is quite false.

Mr. Faulds: When may we expect a statement as to the timetable and legislative intentions of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on archaeological matters?

Mr. Foot: Not immediately, but I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend in order to secure the most appropriate moment for such a declaration.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Secretary of State for the Environment be producing next week either his new order or, alternatively, his Bill of indemnity, to indemnify the staff of the Location of Offices Bureau for the £33,000 illegal expenditure owing to a defective order last year?

Mr. Foot: I shall have a look into these matters, but I do not think that we can deal with it next week in the way that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in order to discuss the very serious implications for this country's energy policy of the judgment of the European Court at Luxembourg on 14th November, which appears to show that fissile materials in this country


are owned not by the United Kingdom but by the Community, that they cannot be moved without the consent of the Community and that the Community may, in fact, station troops in this country to protect nuclear establishments?

Mr. Foot: Whether all those implications follow is another matter, but l agree with my hon. Friend—as I did in response to an earlier question—that such a debate on energy matters generally would be helpful to the House early when we return after Christmas. But I cannot give a definite promise.

Mr. Clegg: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House next week and make a statement about the urgent matters affecting the fishing industry in Fleetwood and the other deep-sea ports?

Mr. Foot: The House heard the statement that was made by my right hon. Friend earlier in the week, and I have nothing to add now to what he said then. But, of course, we are fully aware of the interest in the House in relation to this matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more clear as to what will flow from the Bingham report? Can he tell the House whether he will be able to make a statement next week, first, as to the composition of the Select Committee and, second, whether the members will have available to them all the documents which they think are relevant to their inquiry?

Mr. Foot: I hope that the statement which will be made next week will cover all these matters, although my hon. Friend must not jump to conclusions about the nature of that statement before it is made. But I can assure him that I have fully in mind the point which he put to me last week on this subject.

Mr. Raison: In view of the great importance of the report on Normansfield hospital and the wider issues which that raises, can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be an opportunity to debate that matter?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that there will be an opportunity for debate, but not in the immediate future.

Mr. Christopher Price: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion no. 93, which is signed by myself and 75 of my hon. Friends, about the Official Secrets Act?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government, on a matter of urgency, to fulfil its manifesto commitment to replace the Official Secrets Act by a measure to put the burden on the public authorities to justify withholding information, in the light of the recent official secrets case at the Old Bailey, in which an estimated public expenditure of £250,000 was spent in achieving two conditional discharges and one six-month suspended sentence; and calls upon Mr. Attorney General to clarify his policy on allowing prosecutions for receiving information under section 2 of the Act, in the light of the fact that such charges were allowed in the above cases in spite of the Secretary of State for the Home Department's statement of 22nd November 1976 that the Government no longer regarded receiving official information as an offence.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 19th January, when the Bill of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) comes up, many of us will want to support that Bill? Would it not be more sensible for the Government to maintain their manifesto commitment, take over that Bill and bring forward their own Bill this Session to reform the Official Secrets Act?

Mr. Foot: I know that there are many competing arguments in this case. The Government have indicated the way in which they will seek to approach the matter in this Session, but I doubt whether that will meet all the desires of my hon. Friend. That is one of the factors which has to be weighed. While I cannot add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said, I shall certainly draw his attention to the terms of the early-day motion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Leader of the House recall the report of the all-party Select Committee on Procedure of February last year, which recommended that in a situation such as Thursday's the House should have an opportunity to vote on the Opposition motion before voting on any Government amendment which might be tabled? Since the Leader of


the House feels unable to give an undertaking that no amendment will be tabled, does he agree that this procedure recommended to the House by this impartial Committee should be followed on this occasion?

Mr. Foot: I think that that procedure applies to somewhat different circumstances. I am always happy to listen to the Opposition Patronage Secretary when he intervenes in our debates. However, I happened to overhear him, or perhaps it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), suggest that these were exactly the same circumstances. I do not think that it is the same at all. If the hon. Gentleman examines the facts, I believe he will discover that normally when a motion is put down by the Opposition the Government, if they wish, can exercise their right to put down an amendment. That is not a novelty. It is one of the normal practices of the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Surely the Leader of the House misunderstands the point I am putting. I am not saying that this is a novelty. I am saying that it is a situation which has created problems before, and these problems will arise again on Thursday. In order to enable an Opposition to state their point of view, the Select Committee on Procedure recommended that there should be a vote on the Opposition motion first and then any vote on the Government amendment later. Perhaps the memory of the Leader of the House is not as good as it used to be. May I remind him of the title of the subject from the Select Committee? It is"Voting on Opposition motions on Supply Days." It is exactly to cover this point that the recommendation was made. Why does not the Leader of the House put the interests of the House before those of his party and agree to follow that procedure?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is inviting me to put the interests of his party before the interests of the House. He is inviting me to do something which, in comparable circumstances, I do not believe would be acceptable to any Government. I fully take into account the fact that it might be desirable to change the procedures of the House. But the procedures of the House have not been

changed, and what we are doing is quite within practice and according to precedents of the House.

Mr. Powell: Is not the difficulty in which the House finds itself on this matter a salutary warning against incautious alterations of the time-honoured procedures of the House whereby formerly the Question used to be put on amendments in the form:
That the words proposed to be left out stand part "?
Had we not thought ourselves so clever 10 or 12 years ago and altered this, we would not be in this difficulty now. This was a point that those who went before us had well considered.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to the right hon. Member. I am sure that he and I were agreed at the time, and if only our advice had been followed this difficulty might not have arisen. But I remind the hon. Member for Chelmsford that the point he is posing to me is hypothetical in any case. We are dealing with a proposal on the Order Paper put down by the Opposition. Anything else is hypothetical at the moment.

Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to announce a 20 per cent. increase in television licences by way of a Written Answer is an abuse of democracy and is government by decree? In view of the fact that Back Benchers have had no opportunity whatsoever to question the Minister responsible or to have any discussions, will he arrange for a debate on the Prayer which has been put down?

Mr. Foot: I do not believe that this is government by decree. Everybody knows that Governments make announcements to the House in this way. They have to do so. But that does not preclude the possibility of a debate in the House.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing anxiety in the West Midlands, particularly within the metropolitan county, about the problems of industrial decline and unemployment? Will he take steps to refer these matters to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs for detailed consideration?

Mr. Foot: I would be happy to look at that proposition.

Mr. English: I know that my right hon. Friend's first priority is to see that taxpayers' money is given to authors by way of public lending right, but will he deal with the question of when the Civil Service report, published some 15 months ago, will be debated? I would have thought that our recommendations on the necessity to reconstruct the audit of public expenditure were proved to the hilt by now is a variety of circumstances and needed discussion.

Mr. Foot: Leaving aside my hon. Friend's first comment. I agree that there should be a debate on these matters. There will be a debate on many of these matters very soon, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will contribute to it. In fact, those hon. Members who served on the Committee and other Members who have read the Committee's report will be able to contribute to the discussion.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend seized of the importance of my early-day motion no. 34, signed by 130 hon. Members in all parts of the House, which seeks to do something to help those afflicted by blindness? In view of the fact that it may be difficult to arrange a debate in the near future, will my right hon. Friend undertake to get a Government statement on this matter soon after the recess?
[That this House is deeply concerned about the continuing problems confronting blind people; and, believing that blindness is an extremely severe limiting handicap with resultant problems of mobility and additional living expenses needed to pay for services without which living would be intolerable, is firmly of the opinion that the time has now arrived for Her Majesty's Government to introduce a special blindness allowance for all blind persons over 16 years of age and that such an allowance should be comparable in value with the benefit made available to assist people who cannot walk.]

Mr. Foot: I shall look into this point. I replied to this matter on 24th October, and I have not much to add to what I said then. However, I shall consult my right hon. Friend to see whether a statement can be made soon after the recess.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects

to make an announcement about the membership of the House of Commons Commission?

Mr. Foot: Very soon, I hope. Some discussions are still taking place. I agree that we should get the matter launched. All the procedures have now gone through the House and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement soon.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether there is any precedent for the Government refusing to give time for a Prayer which has been put down in Opposition Front Bench names? I am referring to the Prayer on the disabled housewives' benefit. The time runs out on Tuesday and no time has been provided for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat on the Floor of the House the undertaking that was given to me yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services, that when the matter comes back from the national insurance advisory committee there will be an opportunity for the House to debate and vote on this matter?

Mr. Foot: I am happy to confirm the undertaking that was given by my right hon. Friend. I do not know the exact terms in which he gave it, but I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said just now and I certainly agree that this is a matter on which the House should have a chance to decide. The issue is being referred at present to the national insurance advisory committee and we must allow that to proceed first.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call two more hon. Members.

Mr. Fernyhough: Now that the date for the devolution referendum has been fixed, and since most Scottish and Welsh Members will want to take part—and probably some English Members as well —can my right hon. Friend say whether the House will have any time off during the referendum campaign?

Mr. Foot: Certainly, we shall take my right hon. Friend's representations into account. I hope that when we come to debate the Christmas Recess Adjournment I shall be able to indicate to the House our conclusions on the question of time off for the referendum.

Mr. Freud: When will the Leader of the House explain the reasons for the confidentiality of the announcement of the date of the recess? When my Bill about official information comes on to the statute book, this will no longer be possible. Until such time, will he accept the great difficulty that this secrecy causes to someone like me who comes top of the Private Members' Ballot and has to choose a date for the Second Reading of his Bill? That date conceivably could fall into the period of the recess and, therefore, I could lose my Bill.

Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is inciting me or deterring me from supporting his Bill. One of the reasons for confidentiality on the subject of this date is that we have not decided it yet. That is a very good reason for not letting out the secret.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way in which we can be protected against the abuse of the negative order procedure whereby Prayers put down to annul orders are refused Government time within the 40 days so that even if there were an adverse vote it would not make any difference to the effectiveness of the order? If Parliament is to have any control over delegated legislation, most of which is by negative order, when a Prayer is put down by a substantial number of Members—and certainly by the Opposition Front Bench—the debate should take place within the 40 days. There should be some way by which the House can bring the Government to order on this matter.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully accept the importance of that point. That is one of the reasons for the answer that I gave on that matter to the right hon. Member for Wan-stead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin).

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There used to be a commonly accepted custom that sometimes such Prayers could not be taken within the 40 days but would still be taken. Surely, if my right hon. Friend follows past custom, it will not really matter whether the debate is within the technical 40 days or not.

Mr. Foot: That is the point that I was making a minute or two ago.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: When the Government decide the date of return from the recess, could we have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that the important procedural matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)—the important recommendation of the Select Committee—can be debated at a very early date afterwards?

Mr. Foot: I am prepared to consider whether we should debate that special recommendation. Then all the implications would come out. This is a different matter from the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). It is an important constitutional question that they have raised, and I am very conscious of it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: At this time of the Session, when no one can say that we are all that busy, unlike June and July when a lot of water comes up against the dam and when the Government's position gets difficult, why cannot we have a debate within the 40 days on a Prayer with a negative resolution?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. and learned Member examines the business that I have announced today and the business that has been taking place over recent days, he will see what some of those difficulties are. He will also see the thinking behind the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford. There is to be a reference to the national insurance advisory council. What I said in response to the right hon. Gentleman was that I agreed that there must be a debate on the subject but that the best time for it would be when we got the advisory council's report.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, amp;c.

Ordered,

That the Cosmetics Products Regulations (S.I., 1978, No. 1354) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

" THE TIMES"NEWSPAPER

4.12 p.m.

Patrick Cormack: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Wednesday 29th November under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss:
The crisis in The Times newspaper and its serious consequences.
I am sure that the whole House regrets the necessity as much as it welcomes the opportunity to have this debate today. I merely express the hope at the beginning that what is said here will concentrate minds both here and outside on just how crucial to the proper functioning of a democracy a vigorous free press is, and that it must be an undisrupted free press. I hope also that we shall make a positive contribution to resolving some of the difficulties and healing some of the wounds.
I had hoped that, even at the eleventh hour, there would be a real chance that the suspension of The Times might be lifted. But even this morning, 67,000 copies of the paper were lost. Following another disastrous weekend when The Sunday Times lost some 570,000 copies, I am bound to say that I am not altogether surprised. Having recently talked to Mr. Hussey, the managing director, I do not believe there is much chance of his reconsidering the decision without immediate agreement from all the parties, and there is not really time for that, anyhow.
However, I do not think that we meet in an atmosphere of unrelieved gloom. I have spent much of this morning talking to the union leaders involved and I shall try to make my remarks in tune with two of theirs.
I quote Bill Keys, of SOGAT. He said"Now is not the time for bashing management or unions." I agree with that. When I was talking to Owen O'Brien of NATSOPA, he said"It is important that we treat this as an industrial and not as a political dispute." I hope that we can do that, too.
It is important that we should separate the shepherds from the flocks. The union leaders with whom we are here concerned for the most part are moderate, sensible, honourable men. My conversations with

them this morning were extremely helpful. I believe that they are entirely sincere in their desire to see this unfortunate business resolved as soon as possible.
Of course, that is not to say that many of those who belong to their flocks behave as the shepherds would wish; they would be the first to admit that. Even when we look at Mr. Joe Wade, the leader of the NGA, with whom I also had a very interesting conversation, we see that he is not an intransigent firebrand or militant. Therefore, it is very important that those on the Opposition Benches resist any temptation to confuse the leaders with the led, whereas on the Government Benches it is very important that the sincerity and integrity of the management of The Times be accepted. That does not mean that on either side we have to agree with all that has been said or done by either of the parties. It is a question of good faith and honesty prevailing, and I see a real chance of an early resumption if not a lifting of the suspension if only we can meet and discuss matters in that spirit.
However many reservations we may have about the management's handling of this matter—and I have some myself—it is not a case of it attacking the unions. I believe genuinely that Mr. Hussey and his colleagues mean it when they say that they want strong trade union leaders with whom to negotiate—men who can deliver, who can make agreements and ensure that they are honoured. Equally, I agree with one of the union leaders to whom I was talking, who said that they want strong managements which can manage and with which they can negotiate. He made it plain that he was not endorsing all the methods. No one would have expected him to do so. Equally, he made it plain that he applauded the sentiments of the letter of 26th April, which really began this wholly sorry saga.
We are dealing with a dispute that has been precipitated by reckless, militant unofficial union action. The facts are horrifying. I refer to the letter of 26th April, when, writing to the leaders of the various unions concerned, Mr. Hussey pointed out that
 In the first quarter of 1978 we lost 7.7 million copies—a staggering 20 per cent. of the total output. The effect has been, and continues to be disastrous. First, the Company has lost £1,750,000 in profit so far this year. This is equivalent to the total profit of 1977—easily the best year Times Newspapers has ever had.


The position today, of course, is very much worse. Since then, a further 5.3 million copies have been lost. The total loss of profit is £2.9 million. Since 26th April, 89 per cent. of the copies lost have been as a result of the unofficial action taken by Saturday night staff—some of those who sign in as"Micky Mouse"and the rest of it; we have all read the stories—on The Sunday Times.
By any standards, this is a desperate situation, and one can only welcome the determination of management to do something about it. It is very significant that all the trade union leaders have in their various ways at different times welcomed that determination. I am not seeking to suggest that they have endorsed all the methods, but they have welcomed the determination.
Whatever criticism one may have—perhaps of the wording of certain letters, perhaps of the timing of certain meetings, perhaps of the inability to come together with NATSOPA as quickly as that union would have liked, which are valid points of criticism—I do not think that we should allow it to blind us to the fact that the determination is one that can only serve everyone who believes in a free press.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Does the hon. Member agree that the problem that he is talking about is the problem of casual employment on Saturday nights, not only for The Sunday Times but for other national newspapers, and that this is a problem that has been going on for a very long time? Some trade union leaders in the past have made concrete proposals for decasualisation. Surely this long-standing problem ought not to be used as an excuse for allowing a great newspaper to be closed down for three months. There should have been continual negotiation to deal with the concrete problem of casuals.

Mr. Cormack: Although the hon. Member's intervention has a substance of sense in it, it is not as simple as that. With his experience of journalism and his personal experience as a contributor to The Times, the hon. Member must know that it is not as simple as that.

Mr. Heffer: I did not say that it was simple.

Mr. Cormack: Most of the problems in The Times have not been caused by that factor—The Sunday Times, yes, but not The Times. It is a matter of having to grasp a nettle and deal with that problem among many others. That is what the management of The Times has sought to do.
I say again that I do not endorse every method and every means. I believe that there has been a lack of sensitivity in some of the handling of the matter. It would be nonsense to have a debate in this House and to pretend that all the right is on one side and all the wrong is on the other. That is manifest nonsense, and I would not begin to suggest it.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does the hon. Member accept that what he has just said in terms of the lack of immediate response and the tabling of detailed papers and proposals for discussion by the management side has really totally undermined its idea of a deadline? Had the management tabled those papers and proposals for discussion, the deadline would have carried credibility. Without that, the fact that there was such a tardy response undermined the credibility and validity of the deadline.

Mr. Cormack: I should like to make my speech in my own way. I shall deal with some of those issues as I come to them, but I take some of the hon. Gentleman's points.
The management is determined to bring stability and order where disorder and disruption have been rife. Surely no one who believes in a free press can quarrel with that. The aim is absolutely clear. totally right, and serves every hon. Member—perhaps more than any other single section of the community.
Certainly the union leaders do not quarrel with that determination, whatever some of their more militant elements may say. Let me illustrate the sort of antics that these militant elements get up to. The hon. Member for Coventry, North West (Mr. Robinson) has a point in what he said about the timing of the issuing of certain information, but nothing on earth can excuse the action of the group of union people who locked away the letters offering the terms and did not distribute them to their members. The union leader concerned deplores that as much


as I do, but that is the sort of thing that one is up against. How can anything be put across fairly and clearly if one is being sabotaged in that way?
It is against that background and against some of the wild and vindictive statements made in recent days, especially at a rally not far from here, that we must look at the dispute. It is significant that when the letter went out all but one of the union leaders, in spite of qualms, misgivings and criticisms, were prepared to sit down and try to come to terms.
In that situation, it is hard that the apparent intransigence of one union should have prevented the whole thing being resolved. Of course it is not as simple as that, and although I find it difficult to understand Mr. Wade's refusal to negotiate at all, I have to concede that he is not a man with a militant and disruptive background. Indeed, he has taken his own members to court on occasions. I do not doubt his good intentions.
When I spoke to Mr. Wade this morning I saw some evidence of flexibility, because he said that if a target date could be fixed it might be possible to move towards proper negotiations, but he was adamant about the deadline. I find it difficult to understand his insistence in refusing to negotiate against any date when the actions that have caused such chaos and trouble and have brought The Times almost to the verge of collapse have been carried out at the drop of a hat, or the pulling of a lever. No deadline was given; the men just walked out.
The people who have been taking this action are Mr. Wade's members, and I find his apparent intransigence disappointing, but the fact that he is prepared to talk in terms of a target date should be welcomed by every hon. Member.
Equally, we can see that it is difficult for Mr. Hussey to call off the suspension on the strength of such a statement by Mr. Wade. It is not a question of doubting the honesty of the statement, but Mr. Hussey has not had the opportunity to negotiate with Mr. Wade since July and I fully understand his reluctance to climb down on the say-so of one man who cannot, much as he would like, deliver over the telephone at the eleventh hour.
This is where we come to the crunch of the debate. After today, there will be no deadline. Much as we regret it, The

Times, The Sunday Times and the supplements will cease to appear. It is up to us all to appeal to every participant in the dispute to harness his genuine united resolve to talk and to get down and do it.
Our positive message, which might help to resolve the dispute, should be"Get to the table ". We should say to the NGA that there is now no deadline. It has gone, and every day that goes by weakens the position of The Times and must therefore weaken the position of the NGA members and do great damage to a free press and a free society.
We should say to the management that it has shown that it is determined and resolved, and was not bluffing. Let it now, together with the unions, set a target date—take Mr. Wade's suggestion. I should like to think that the target could be 14 days because some of those who are receiving notice have only 14 days' notice. If that were the target, it would concentrate minds wonderfully and prevent anyone being out of work. I hope that it is in that spirit that the management and unions will get together tomorrow or as soon as possible thereafter.
With good will and a sense of urgency, much can still be saved, and it is up to us all to reinforce that point. Nothing can be gained by anyone prolonging or exacerbating the dispute or seeking to excite tribal feelings on either side.
I shall listen with great interest to the Secretary of State for Employment. I must stress that this is not a dispute that needs Government involvement or interference. Exhortation of the sort that I have made would be fine if the right hon. Gentleman felt that he could endorse it, but there should be no Government involvement. Apart from the fact that we always regret that, ministerial involvement in a dispute in the press has certain unfortunate implications, and I hope that the Secretary of State will not get involved in that way.
The aim of the negotiations must be simple—to reach an agreed disputes procedure which guarantees, as far as any man can guarantee, that there will be no disruption of production, content or distribution of Times Newspapers. The prize will be not only the survival of The Times and its sister papers but a new stability in Fleet Street.
Anyone who is concerned with the press and its vital and unique contribution to a free society must tremble at some of the things that go on in Fleet Street. It is an industrial jungle without the laws of the jungle, and it is essential that union leaders should have power and status and should be able to discipline their members and enter into binding agreements and commitments, knowing that they will be honoured and kept. It is the breaking of those agreements and the total disregard for anything that ordinary men of honour would regard as binding that have brought Fleet Street and the British press to the present situation.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: The unions did say that unless the management removed the suspension they would not talk. It is the management which has caused the suspension.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. I apologise if I have not made it clear, but I thought the facts were well known. Although many unions made critical noises about the way in which the letters were sent out, and so on, only one refused to go to the negotiating table.
On the other point, the management made it plain on 26th April that if agreements could not be reached and a proper disputes procedure and all the things that go with it clinched, it would suspend publication, because it was being bled to death, and that The Times newspapers would not exist this time next year if the management had not made a fairly determined and united stand on this matter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have been following with some interest the hon. Gentleman's discourse about this lockout. What concerns me is that he has not so far mentioned the fact that The Guardian is printed in the same buildings by members of the same unions operating the same sort of machinery, but with a different management. Does that suggest to him that perhaps there is some difference between the managements which allowed one set of presses to run without any difficulties or interruption, year after year, while other presses faced difficulties?

Mr. Cormack: No one who has looked at the history of The Times and of Fleet Street—including The Guardian—over the last few years could suggest that all has been sweetness, harmony and light, because it has not been. In this instance there might have been a happier situation on the one hand than on the other, but one cannot ignore the fact that Times newspapers were suffering, and have suffered as late as this morning—67,000—

Mr. Robin Corbett: It is a question of profit.

Mr. Cormack: Why is the hon. Gentleman laughing about profit?

Mr. Corbett: I am not: it is a question of making money.

Mr. Cormack: Without profit, there could not be any newspapers.
The management's recommendations. which it asks should form the basis for agreement, are in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission set up by the Labour Government. Only two days ago, in The Daily Telegraph the chairman of that Royal Commission made it plain that the agreements were indeed in line with those recommendations.
All sorts of half-truths have been put around. People have been talking about mass redundancy. There will be no compulsory redundancy as a result of the agreements that are being suggested. Those who accept voluntary redundancy will be treated more generously than any other group of people in living memory. A programme on television the other night pointed out that these were the most generous terms ever offered.
On the other parts of the agreement, there was an article in The Times earlier this week by Mr. Louis Heren in which he pointed out that
 Holidays are to be six weeks a year, and sick pay is to be improved: 12 months' full pay in any 18-month period. Salaries and wages will be increased when the final agreement is reached. Redundancy payments will be generous; for instance, an employee earning £100 a week and with 20 years service will be offered £8,000.
That is not the attitude of a disdainful, insensitive, uncaring management. It is the attitude of a management that has a sense of real responsibility for those who work for it. Although, as Mr. Hussey


has said, some t's need crossing and some details need arguing over, there is the basis for a proper and lasting agreement.
I hope that this clear message can go out from the House today to all those involved:"For goodness' sake, if there is no Times tomorrow "—we must reluctantly and sadly accept that—" get to the table as soon as possible, have a target date for completing negotiations, bring order where there is disorder and stability where there is chaos. Let us get back to having a press of which we can be proud and which we know has an assured future."

4.36 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and I shall take his advice on at least one point. I agree that if this debate is to help to ensure that The Times will continue to be printed, if it is to help to solve some of the many problems that need to be solved, so that The Times can be published regularly, it must not turn an industrial dispute into a political dispute.
So far this year, 12 million copies of The Times, The Sunday Times and the supplements have been lost through industrial disputes. I am told that all the disputes are unofficial and lack support from senior union officials. Many have lasted only a few hours, but in the production of a newspaper, at certain times a few hours can be very important.
I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between losses due to industrial disputes and those caused by mechanical failure. I nevertheless believe that that figure of copies lost graphically illustrates the scale of the problems at Times Newspapers. With The Sunday Times, I understand that it is some weeks since a full production run has been achieved.
Because of the heavy losses in the first quarter of this year, The Times chief executive and managing director, Mr. Hussey, wrote to the general secretaries of the unions in the newspaper industry on 26th April. In that letter he emphasised the damage that was being done to the loyalty of readers and advertisers and the serious diversion of managerial resources. He proposed discussions with the unions on a number of issues, speci-

fically including continuity of production. an effective disputes procedure, efficient manning levels, general wage restructuring and new technology—certainly an impressive list.

Mr. Corbett: My right hon. Friend talks about unofficial disputes. Is he aware that the roots of many of those disputes lie in the frustration of the men concerned, they having gone through the disputes procedure and found the management totally unwilling to deal with the problems raised in that way?

Mr. Booth: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow that I am not normally reluctant to respond to interventions, but I should like to come a little later to the point that he raised. At the moment I am seeking to describe as fairly as I can the position as the management stated it at the onset of this dispute.
The letter that Mr. Hussey sent to the union general secretaries ended by saying:
 it is the firm decision of the Board of Times Newspapers that, if it is not possible to negotiate a joint approach to resolve these problems and if disruption continues, publication of all our newspapers will be suspended ".
This message was repeated in a further letter to general secretaries on 21st July, which was followed up three days later by a suggested disputes procedure.
TNL also wrote to all staff on 22nd July, confirming that if negotiations on management's proposals were not concluded by 30th November, TNL would have to suspend publication. They would also have to give the 90-days' notice required by section 100 of the Employment Protection Act—notice that has to be given if an employer proposes to dismiss 100 or more employees as redundant.
In the event, on 18th September Times Newspapers Limited formally notified me of potential redundancies affecting all its 4,270 employees. I had two meetings with Mr. Hussey, one before and one at the time when he was about to give me official notice. At those meetings he assured me that he was anxious to have full consultations with the trade unions in the hope that it would not prove necessary to suspend publication.
As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West said, most of the unions concerned responded to that initial approach by the management The Society of


Graphical and Allied Trades, the National Society of Operative Printers, Graphical and Media Personnel and the National Union of Journalists declared right away their willingness to negotiate. The National Graphical Association, however, was unwilling at that stage to enter discussions while the threat of suspension was over its head—a position that it has maintained ever since, apart from the fact that one meeting has taken place. Perhaps I can refer to that later.
As 30th November drew near, there were a number of strong complaints from the unions, particularly NATSOPA, about the lack of time to conclude some very detailed negotiations—negotiations on a wide range of issues that have been put forward by management. A recent publication entitled"NATSOPA Times Diary"contains a letter of 15th May from the union's general secretary, Mr. Owen O'Brien, to Mr. Hussey, agreeing to a meeting, but that meeting did not take place until 26th September. I understand that detailed proposals in relation to individual chapels were not put forward until as late as October, so that a considerable time elapsed between the initial approach and the first occasion on which it was possible for chapels to examine some very detailed proposals by management, affecting a new procedure agreement and manning levels.
It seems clear that the management, having given notice of its intentions in April, lost a good deal of the initiative that it believed it had gained in doing so by not bringing forward its detailed proposals as a basis for discussion for five to six months. That must have prejudiced its chances of securing agreement within the time scale that it had laid down.
There are 54 separate negotiating groups at Times Newspapers, some of them consisting of quite small numbers. The changes in working practices and procedures that Times Newspapers is seeking are radical and far-reaching. They require considerable adjustment on the part of the work force, particularly that part whose traditional trade is threatened with virtual extinction by some of the proposed changes.
Detailed changes in terms and conditions of employment will be required

across the board in certain areas of employment. It is possible that the management underestimated the enormous amount of work involved in negotiating such changes. If it did, it may in doing so have aggravated what was in any case bound to be a difficult negotiating task.
On the other hand, and in fairness to the management, I must say that the fact that it has already reached agreements with some groups shows that, given good will on both sides, it has been possible to make considerable progress on some of the proposals.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: How many of the 54 have signed, up to today? Very few have done so.

Mr. Booth: Only two of the groups have signed final terms of complete agreement, but that is not to say that there has not been progress with other groups. I am trying to indicate that even within the time scale, and even given the complex and detailed nature of some of the proposals, it has been possible to make considerable progress. I am trying to give a fair account of the situation as I have seen it, having been involved from a particular point of view.
The NUJ chapel at The Sunday Times has completed an agreement, and an agreement has been completed in respect of 54 SOGAT distribution workers. Excluding the NGA, the unions involved have negotiated a new disputes procedure with the management. NATSOPA, for example, has indicated to me even within the past two days that, provided the threat of suspension were lifted, it would be prepared to recommend to all its chapels acceptance of the new disputes procedure and would seek to have it endorsed by the members in the chapels. Therefore, the management would not be relying on the signature of national officials. If that were possible it could have the agreement fully endorsed by the membership of the unions within Times Newspapers. Many meetings have taken place with a number of groups, and in some of those meetings substantial progress has been made.
Nevertheless, there remain some very important areas in which the prospects of agreement seem very dim at present. They include the clerical and machine branches of NATSOPA, where the management


is seeking considerable changes in working practices. There is also a very difficult problem concerning the NGA, whose members will be most affected by the introduction of the new technology. Apart from one meeting earlier this month on one specific issue, there have been no serious discussions with the NGA since July. It can hardly be expected that a solution will be found within the next few hours.
I have kept in close touch with both sides to the dispute over a period of time. I have had meetings with representatives of NATSOPA, SOGAT, the NUJ and the NGA, and with management representatives. My understanding of the management's present intention—I checked this with Mr. Hussey and Mr. Nisbet-Smith as recently as yesterday morning—is that at some stage following the suspension of publication it will issue individual notices of termination of employment to all those employees with whom no agreement has been reached. No such notices will be given to those groups with which agreement has been reached. The full period of notice required by each employee's contract of employment will be given. I confirm that this ranges from as little as two weeks for some casual employees to as much as four months for some permanent employees.
Unless the proposed suspension of production continues for so long that the newspaper cannot be reopened in its present form, it is not the management's intention to declare any of its employees redundant. Although the management is undoubtedly seeking substantial reductions in manning levels in order to achieve greater efficiency and to accompany the introduction of new technology, its intention is that that should be achieved by voluntary severance on special terms that it has proposed. It is management's claim that it is now proposing very good redundancy terms.

Mr. Max Madden: What is my right hon. Friend's view of the validity of the dismissal notices that will be issued? As what stage would the company have to file a claim under the redundancy payments legislation for rebate?

Mr. Booth: If the management contends that it will not make anyone redundant, that on the termination of a

dispute it is prepared to re-employ all those who worked for it previously, and that there are jobs for all the people concerned to return to, the management could contend that it was not a redundancy situation, and therefore the question of redundancy notice would not arise. The management would not make a claim upon redundancy funds.
If, however, an individual employee contended that his dismissal constituted redundancy it would be a matter for the appropriate arbitral body to determine. The general rule which has been followed by the appropriate arbitral body since redundancy legislation was introduced is that a person claiming redundancy has to show that his job has disappeared and that he cannot continue to work in the job in which he had previously worked. That matter may have to be tested. I hope that it will not. I seriously hope that wiser councils will prevail before anyone has to claim redundancy. I hope that the dispute will be resolved before then.
I believe that the course on which The Times management have embarked with its unions is a major enterprise. What it is seeking to do in terms of technology alone is an enormous enterprise. It involves nothing less than the replacement of the hot metal technique for the production of newspapers by a computer-assisted photographic method. If that technique is fully embraced, not only will many skilled men be redundant; their skills will become redundant.
The House should understand something of the apprehension and hostility that is bound to arise if a new form of technology is introduced in a way that causes men to be displaced from jobs and that does not involve satisfactory negotiations with union representatives. This is a problem in newspaper industries throughout the world; it is not peculiar to The Times. Difficulties have arisen in Germany because of the introduction of new technology in newspapers, and in a recent New York newspaper closure. However, progress is being made in most European countries with the introduction of the new print technologies. Many provincial papers in Britain have already adopted new technologies. They have been negotiated without disputes.
The Daily Mirror group is moving towards a computer system of production, which began with Reveille. There are substantial differences between the Daily Mirror and The Times in the way in which copy is assembled. Possibly the management of The Times has adopted a more radical and ambitious approach to the use of the computer. Because of that, problems have arisen which have not previously arisen in a national newspaper in this country.
The Times management is proposing a system that will involve the direct input of copy by tele-ad clerks and some journalists into the form of the page. That will render unnecessary highly skilled work by compositors who, in the view of many people working in other industries have earned high wages. Their skill is now being overtaken by a historic technological change.
Such changes in technology have been negotiated throughout the country. That shows that British trade unions have not simply stuck their heads in the sand and refused to come to terms with change. Far from it. The trade unions have recognised their primary function of protecting their members. They have recognised that they cannot go faster than their members will allow them to go.
Major changes such as this must be negotiated. In the last analysis they can be effectively introduced only with the consent of the people who are most directly concerned.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Everybody will understand the difficulties and feel the sympathy to which the Secretary of State has referred, but does he agree that it is going too far to say, as he did, that these changes can be introduced only with the consent of those affected, and through negotiations? Does that not mean that if consent is withheld the change cannot be made? That does not make sense in a progressive world.

Mr. Booth: I can see the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. I shall qualify what I said. Changes can be introduced only in a way that is acceptable to the overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members, and only when there is negotiation. Those who are most directly affected by the change in tech-

nology have the right to be represented. particularly when the introduction of that technology involves redundancy. After all, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) will concede, the House passed the Employment Protection Act, which gave to members of independent recognised trade unions the right to be consulted about changes of this type.
It behoves the House to remember that it may be a little easier to recommend the embracing of new technology when one is standing at the Dispatch Box, or speaking from one of the Banck Benches, than it is on a workshop floor, when one is talking about the loss of one's own job or the jobs of one's workmates.
I have seen some wonderful examples of trade union representatives agreeing to changes in technology. A few weeks ago I visited Baxi Fires, in Preston, where, as a result of a unanimous vote by the works council, the introduction of a new and efficient foundry system was agreed which rendered half the work force redundant. No golden handshakes were attached to that agreement. The workers who were made redundant received £50 above the national redundancy terms.
There are examples throughout the country of union representatives being involved in production changes. It is therefore reasonable to hope that the same attitudes can prevail in The Times.
I and other Ministers have been urged by a number of hon. Members and others to intervene in the dispute. I understand that request. I understand as well as, if not better than, anybody that a confrontation strategy cannot be relied upon to produce results on the scale required in this case. I do not believe that a further, immediate formal intervention in the full glare of publicity, without the agreement of the parties to the dispute, would be of help or be effective in the present circumstances.
I assure the House that I have talked to all the main parties and that I shall continue to do so. I shall miss no opportunity to contribute towards a solution, although of course, in the last resort, a solution must depend to a large extent upon accommodation between the parties to the dispute.
It is also open to those parties, if they feel that it would be helpful, to have


the assistance of ACAS. That body has done a great deal of useful work, including work with the Royal Commission on the press, which has been acknowledged by hon. Members who are interested in the press. I have had the opportunity on several occasions of discussing The Times problems with the ACAS chairman, Mr. Jim Mortimer. The service has been keeping in close touch in case it can offer assistance.
In order for ACAS to help it will need the co-operation of both sides. At no time has that been forthcoming. There is no magic formula by which anybody can wave away the problems in the dispute. I do not believe that a solution can be imposed, by a Government Minister or anybody else.
I am under no illusions that there are plenty of faults on both sides in the dispute. Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West I hope that both sides will admit candidly that there are faults on both sides.
Management has willingly made concessions, under pressure, to individual work groups in a way that has undermined its position and the position of some senior union representatives. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served this afternoon by cataloguing the faults of unions or management in newspapers. We have to appreciate that we may be at a highly critical stage in the dispute, that there will be a change in the situation tonight which might be the right moment psychologically, if there is a suspension of publication, to make another attempt to resolve the dispute.
I recognise the strong feeling that exists in the House and elsewhere about the situation that has developed at The Times. The Government certainly share this concern, a concern that will no doubt be expressed throughout the debate. There is a concern, too, that the difficulties of The Times should not lead to the loss of a newspaper that has become a national institution. Of course, we are anxious that the present range of newspapers, which are the basis of press freedom in this country, should not be further restricted. Above all, I am extremely concerned that 4,000 jobs should not be thrown away unnecessarily as a result of the dispute.
We debated these issues earlier this year. There was a considerable measure of agreement that industrial relations in Fleet Street were in a mess. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the press would, I believe, command support from most employers and trade unions in Fleet Street. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will join me in hoping that out of this present difficult situation the basis for more stable and constructive industrial relations in Times Newspapers will emerge.
Even at this late stage, with only a few hours to go, I entreat both the management and the unions of Times Newspapers to negotiate urgently to preserve jobs and The Times titles. I stand ready to respond to any invitation from any of the parties to the dispute to do anything that I or my Department can do to help. I very much hope that if that is necessary I shall be able to participate in bringing about a solution that can not only keep our press going but will contribute to jobs and good working procedures, and will ensure that employment in this industry will grow and not be threatened by industrial relations problems.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I have written many obituaries for The Times. I hope that this debate is not an obituary for that great newspaper. Were The Times to be suspended we should miss a great deal: Marc's cartoons, those magisterial leaders that come down firmly on both sides of the fence, and Bernard Levin's fresh weekly insight into Wagner.

Mr. George Gardiner: And the obituaries.

Mr. Critchley: Indeed, and the obituaries. I have written the obituaries of many members of our own Front Bench. Some have taken far longer than others.
Times Newspapers is trying single handed to bring order into the chaos that is Fleet Street, a labour to rank with those of Hercules. Management weakness and union avarice have brought great newspapers to their knees. Will the print unions now be brought to their senses?
The NGA is holding out on the ground that it refuses to negotiate under duress. I know that humbug is the essential lubricant of public life, but that is ridiculous.


What has Ford been doing this last nine weeks? Strikes, or the threat of them, are weapons that unions never hesitate to use. In the past the NGA or its members have held up the production of newspapers in the small hours at revolver point. Yet they now call"Foul ". It would be funny were it not so desperately sad.
At the very least some of the stones of Fleet Street have been lifted recently and we can now see what has gone on beneath. This initiative on behalf of Times Newspapers, an article last year in Index by Mr. David Astor, and the attentions of television have revealed a truly shocking picture.
The Fleet Street unions have successfully exploited the rivalries between newspapers. In the past management has been willing to concede anything rather than risk a strike that might throw its readers into the hands of its rivals.
The print unions—SLADE, NGA and, to a lesser extent, SOGAT—use several stratagems to increase the earnings of their members. Compositors can earn three, four or even five times as much as the official wage rates. Let me outline a few of those stratagems.
There is the blow system. This is rest time which is often as much as one hour out of three. It does not mean that the men remain idle, only that throughout nominal rest time they have to be paid at overtime rates.
Another device is ghost working. Here the unions extract payments for workers who do not exist because of new machines or new methods and they are no longer needed. The father of the chapel shares out the money among the living.
A third device is known as double working. Some chapels limit the week's rota to four shifts. One employer then signs men on for social security and they work at other times as casuals on overtime rates. Managers turn a blind eye to the practice among some union men of defrauding the Revenue by using false names, such as Mickey Mouse or"Duke"Hussey when they register as casuals in order to collect the money.
A final device used by the print unions is called fat. This is the money shared

out among the compositors for the advertising copy that they never set.
I wish Times Newspapers well. Its initiative is long overdue. Fortunately, it is rich enough to be able to take such initiatives, and that is not always the case with other newspapers in Fleet Street. It wishes to restore its power to manage its newspapers. After all, we are not dealing here with the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
The struggle is with a small, highly privileged minority of 6,000 or 7,000 men. many earning more than £13,000 a year. Why should this little band of the comparatively rich and the comparatively idle be allowed to hold newspapers and their readers to ransom? If nothing is done we shall see the destruction of many of our great newspapers and the destruction of a free Press and all that that means to our democracy.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: There is often a widespread misconception by people outside this House that we are unable to debate matters of great urgency and public interest. Therefore, it is most welcome that our procedure that enables us to discuss the closure of The Times permits us a rare chance to discuss a matter of urgency and general concern.
I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists. Before becoming a Member of the House I spent a very large part of my working life as an industrial reporter, reporting all sorts of industrial disputes, national and local. During those years I witnessed as a reporter the folly of attempting to negotiate by ultimatum. It is rarely successful, and indeed the events we are discussing today illustrate that it has proved unsuccessful for Times Newspapers.
As a journalist, I wish to say that I have no illusions or misunderstandings about the human foibles of all those who work together collectively to produce newspapers each day, each week or every Sunday. The relationship between journalists and printers especially is one of creative tension, usually carried out in very colourful language. But we all share a common view that it is necessary for each person to contribute towards the production of a newspaper, and on most occasions it is done with success.
However, there are occasions on every newspaper and publication when for one


reason or another that is not possible. It would be wrong to point a finger of accusation and to say that the responsibility for any interruption lies always with one section of those who are responsible for producing a newspaper. I hope that some of the attempts which have been made in this debate and which seek to leave the impression that the responsibility for lost production and interruptions in production lies with just one section of those who produce newspapers will not be pursued in later speeches.
We are concerned in this debate with the suspension of Times Newspapers which, if it occurs in a little under six hours' time, will result quickly in a substantial loss of jobs, may well escalate into other newspapers and publications throughout the country and deprive many people of their choice of reading possibly for a considerable time.
I in no way wish to be disrespectful to you, Mr. Speaker, but in many ways I feel that it would have been better if this debate had taken place yesterday, or indeed earlier this week. I believe that this debate, and perhaps the involvement of Ministers, could have been used towards some constructive purpose, namely, in trying to persuade the management of Times Newspapers to withdraw its threat of suspension to enable full and proper negotiations to take place. However, alas, that has not been the case.
We have had an account from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about his involvement and contact with management and trade unions, and we have heard about the consultations he has carried out. My right hon. Friend has also expressed readiness, even at this late stage, to try to assist. I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that his offer is known personally to all the parties concerned, because I think that some of the conditions for the withdrawal of the suspension threat in seeking to avert the loss of these newspapers and in achieving success in negotiation could be won even at this late hour if there were a general willingness for success to take place.
The management of Times Newspapers has skilfully sought to leave with the general public and all those who take an interest in these matters the impression that its proposals centre entirely on

the acceptance of new technology. That is not the case. Reference is being made to the letter from Mr. Marmaduke Hussey of 26th April this year. I shall not go through that long letter, but I believe that any objective reader will understand that all the working agreements in Times Newspapers Limited were to be regarded as null and void and were to be renegotiated in respect of every conceivable working agreement within Times Newspapers. These agreements cover manning levels, wages structure, disputes procedure, new technology and many other matters.
In one of the areas of Times Newspapers that would suffer the largest reduction in manpower, namely, the machine room where a 60 per cent. reduction in employment would take place on the proposals made by the management, there is no technology involved whatever. Therefore, hon. Members and the public should understand that this is not an argument about new technology and its acceptance across the board. It is in many ways an altogether different argument. What the management has sought to do is to secure wide-ranging and fundamental changes in working agreements and practices throughout the company affecting every employee.

Mr. James Prior: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent management in this case, because everybody knew right from the start that the management was very much concerned with overmanning. Indeed, this has been one of the crucial issues throughout these events. It would be wrong to say that the management has concentrated entirely on new technology, because certainly overmanning has always been one of the issues.

Mr. Madden: I am trying to say that there are a number of major issues which lie behind the attempt to renegotiate working agreements. Manning was one, and technology was another.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) in opening the debate drew attention to losses in production. However, surely the disputes procedure and its acceptance is also a crucially important matter. There is not one issue to which one can point as the predominant or dominating issue. There


are a whole series of inter-related issues and matters which are the subject of negotiation.
Therefore, it is wrong to say that the only reason why these matters are being pressed under the threat of closure is the loss of production. Of course, we are concerned about such losses, and they have been condemned by many who work for Times Newspapers Limited. The House should not believe that there is wholesale support for every interruption in production. That view would be quite wrong.
Equally, it would be wrong to say that the guilt for those interruptions lies on each occasion with workers in the company. There was a recent incident involving the loss of several hundred thousand newspapers because a belt on a machine had broken. The management insisted that the workers should buy a needle to sew the belt to enable the machines to operate. That cost 12p to purchase, and that happened the following morning. There was a loss of production that night, which no doubt was entered in the books as an industrial interruption caused by the workers. That occurred because the management refused to spend 12p on a needle with which to mend the belt to enable the machine to operate effectively.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman appears to be admitting the existence of overmanning, but he should point out that the management of Times Newspapers has made it clear that there will be no dismissals. [HON. MEMBERS:"Reductions."] If there is gross overmanning, who can object to the fact that there have to be some reductions? However, the management has also made clear that the terms of redundancy will be better than any terms of redundancy which have operated before. It should be made clear that the management is not treating the workers who constitute the overmanning in a cavalier or casual manner.

Mr. Madden: This is a short debate, and I do not wish to be diverted into such considerations as those. There are many other hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate.
I do not believe that any objective observer of recent events would say that

the management, if it wanted successfully to secure renegotiation on wide-ranging and fundamental issues, displayed a sense of urgency in securing those agreements. The excellent document from NATSOPA setting out the chronicle of these events includes an interesting letter from Mr. Marmaduke Hussey dated 5th September and addressed to Mr. Owen O'Brien, general secretary of NATSOPA. The letter reads:
 Thank you for your letter of 11th August, which I only read last night on my return from a holiday in Somerset. I am very grateful for your constructive reply to our suggestion of a meeting and hope to arrange very shortly with your office a meeting between Times Newspapers management and national and branch officers to explore the problems which we believe exist. Thank you again for your prompt reply.
If one goes through the sequence of letters and dates, there does not appear to be that sense of urgency that one would expect from a competent management trying to secure successful renegotiation of all its working agreements with every employee.
We should take careful note of the fact that there is now general agreement, apart from the NGA, on a comprehensive disputes procedure which, in the view of the signatories to it, would lessen the interruptions in productions which, rightly, have been emphasised in this debate. I shall read the first paragraph of that disputes procedure:
In the event of any difference arising between the chapel and management which cannot immediately be resolved, continuity of the full operation required by the company will be safeguarded, and practices and agreements existing prior to the difference shall continue to operate pending a settlement, or until the agreed procedure has been exhausted. There shall be no stoppage of work, either of a partial or a general character. Neither shall either side take any action restricting the total production and administrative requirements of the company during the stages of the following procedures.
That, I would argue, constitutes a major advance which would help to alleviate interruptions in production. It also offers the prospect, even at this late stage, for the management to say that this gave it the chance to combat interruptions in production and the opportunity to lift its suspension threat, thereby allowing proper negotiations to get under way.
Our industry has been characterised for many years by reductions in employment, concentration of ownership in more and


more private hands, and a contraction of the industry which has created a climate of mistrust and suspicion. Is it any wonder that there have been interruptions in production in this company over the past few weeks when the threat of suspension has been hanging over the heads of workers? It is any wonder that that situation has arisen? I would argue that it is not, and I would hope that many people will read the editorial in The Guardian today because I think that it gave a very objective and dispassionate view of the situation.
The Times is not fighting a general battle on behalf of Fleet Street. Its difficulties are not shared by every newspaper in the land. The Times management has dug a hole into which it looks as if it will fall. This is a tragedy, particularly because it is a needless one.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I was amazed by the selective and highly partisan account which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) gave when he ran through some of the recent events in Fleet Street. For example, he said that the only reason—[Interruption.) I declare an interest as a member of the NUJ. I have done so many times before. It was said that the only reason why copies have been lost at The Times was that there was the threat of suspension. The hon. Member omitted to mention that vast numbers of copies had been lost long before there was any threat of suspension. This is a deep rooted and historical problem which does not just apply to The Times, although The Times is the first management which has grasped the nettle and tackled the problem.
Those of us who took part in the debate on 18th May will recall that there was widespread agreement about the serious nature of the problem, and similar agreement on both sides of the House that the abuses by certain groups of workers in Fleet Street were out of control. Several hon. Members, of whom I was one, predicted that sooner or later some management would say"This dance shall go no further ", take a firm stand, and do the task which managements have been asked to do for many years and actually manage.
The problem in Fleet Street has been that managements have been too weak. Now at last, when we see a strong man-

agement doing its job properly, there are howls of outrage, such as those from the hon. Member for Sowerby.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) on the judicious and balanced way in which he outlined the problem. Because I know this industry well, I hope that he will forgive me if I use stronger language than he did.
First, we have to recognise that we are dealing in Fleet Street with the most overpaid and underworked group of workers in Britain. There are quite astonishing built-in extravagances in the salary structure. On The Times today, and indeed in any Fleet Street newspaper, even an unskilled worker—a cleaner, for example —earns in excess of £100 a week. A linotype operator whose skills, after all, are scarcely superior to those of a typist, earns £15,000 or more a year in Fleet Street.
These gold-plated salaries are paid in many instances to men who work only 28 hours a week. Should we therefore be pouring out buckets of sympathy on those who have disrupted production, in view of the excellent rewards they are getting?

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman should not make these statements. He will know that in The Times machine room the standard rate. including premiums, is at the most £16:20p per shift, times five days per week. These are total gross earnings of £81, not the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Aitken: There are, of course, discrepancies between various branches and various unions. This is one of the problems. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has done the House a service by drawing attention to them. It is a fact that some of those who work hardest in Fleet Street sometimes do not get the kind of rewards of which I have been speaking. Thus, there is a sense of grievance between union and union. That is why there are about 52 to 54 negotiating groups at The Times. There is some justice for the sense of grievance that some of them feel. We must bear in mind—when talking of the low figures—some of the abuses outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). The truth is that this is a


well-paid and well-heeled industry for the workers.
The best that we hope for from this unfortunate suspension is that out of it will emerge strong trades unions. That is the view of The Times management, because it wants to be able to negotiate with union leaders who can deliver their bargains and keep their promises. The problem is that the wildcats are in control today not the union leaders. For Fleet Street, Lord Acton's famous aphorism about power has to be amended. In Fleet Street it is lack of power which corrupts absolutely, because, whatever the union leaders are saying, sure enough, there is some chapel, even an element within that chapel, doing something completely different and in violation of the disputes procedures.
What is needed more than anything else—and this is where management at The Times has rightly dug in its toes—is an agreed disputes procedure. Until we have that, there is no future for The Times or any other newspaper against the background of a Fleet Street which has lost 70 million copies this year, with The Times losing more than 12 million copies.
I rejoice in the fact that we now have a management which is really managing. This must make sense for the future of the industry, for the workers, and, of course, for the readers, who are too often neglected during discussions of these complex problems. This debate is a harbinger of things to come for the future of British industry. We should be well aware that new technologies are coming into the industry. We have heard a great deal about the micro-processor and the silicon chip. Without doubt, a great deal of British industry needs modernising. New technologies have to be implemented. There is no doubt that unions and managements have to co-operate in a constructive way to ensure that British industry is profitable and successful and that a minimum of jobs is lost.
These problems have to be tackled. We cannot get away from that. The approach of the unions in Fleet Street has been the approach of a lot of ostriches who have dug their heads into the sand and caused the newspapers to lose millions of copies because they will not come to terms with the need for a sensible disputes proce-

dure, and a sensible approach to new technology and its implementation.
I congratulate The Times management on the stand that it has taken. I am sure that it may have made a mistake or two in certain discussions along the line, just as I am certain that the unions have made mistakes. That is not the point. The big picture is that management is doing its job. The majority of the unions which are still in dispute have not made any comparable response. Sadly, I believe that the right move has been made by the management of The Times.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: I admit to being a member of the National Graphical Association, a union which has come in for some criticism here this afternoon as well as having been criticised outside the House. It might be worth mentioning at the beginning of my speech a word or two about the position of the NGA. Even those who criticise the NGA for its approach to the negotiations with The Times have had to admit that it is the NGA, through its membership in The Times, which has the most to suffer. The greatest degree of change expected of any group of people in The Times is expected from those who work and operate within the NGA.
The worry and anxiety caused by the new technology, what it could mean to traditional skills, requiring long apprenticeships—I served an apprenticeship in the NGA 30 years ago—must greatly exercise the minds of the men who are now being taken from one type of process to another. As has been said earlier, we in this House are too remote from the scene to imagine that we can even begin, during this short debate, to try to understand the feelings and the anxieties of those on the shop floor.
The issue at The Times may concern official disputes. It may concern pay. Fundamentally, it is about the way in which new technology is to be incorporated into old and traditional skills. That is pretty important. Anyone who does not understand that will never make much headway in trying to bring about the introduction of technology in other forms of industry. That is the first point to be made.
There are, perhaps, even more important points to be made. I do not


believe that this is the moment to apportion blame. I believe that the spirit and feeling of the trade union leadership associated with The Times and the spirit and feeling of the management are to try to get to grips with the problem tomorrow. It is almost impossible to resolve this dispute within the next few hours. However, I am sure that it is the will of those involved to get together tomorrow, and in the days that follow, and seek to ensure that there is a procedure dealing with disputes, work operations, and with the new technology—a procedure which will see the company through for many years to come. It is to that point that we must direct our attention.
It is futile for anyone in this short debate to imagine that he gains a point, on political or any other grounds, by saying that one side is totally right and the other totally wrong.
My second point concerns the difficult situation which we in Parliament face. What can we do to counsel the management or the trade unions? We have no executive authority. It is right for us to remember that occasionally. There is no precedent for action in this crisis, any more than there is in any other industrial crisis. If we are brutally honest with ourselves, we have to admit that there is not the public interest, in quantitative terms, to suggest that this is a campaign, above all issues, likely to disturb the public conscience. Although The Times has a limited circulation, I do not say that the public is uninterested for that reason alone.
Over the past year or so we have seen a number of other newspapers with a great popular appeal fail to appear for 10 days or so. That has not brought the public into an anxious state, as some people might suggest. I suggest that part of the reason lies in our understanding of what is happening in communications generally. It is not as if the only form of information available to people is through the newspaper. I do not believe that the public, in the widest sense, is very concerned about what happens at The Times. That is not a sufficient reason for us to ignore the position. Clearly, this debate has an important part to play in trying to resolve the dispute.
The issues resulting in the suspension of The Times tonight are deeply serious. They affect the people and heritage of this nation, even though many people will not see its immediate application to their roles and circumstances. It was on 18th May that we last debated the newspaper industry in some detail. Perhaps, even at that stage, if some of the ideas, some of the anxieties expressed then, had been even partially taken into account, we would not be in this cliff-hanger situation.
Three things came out of the debate of 18th May which highlight the problems in Fleet Street. One concerns the type of production. It is quite extraordinary that here we have, within the course of four or five hours—sometimes a little longer—management and trade union representatives taking critical decisions about the production for a particular night. If the delivery is not met, if the right number of papers is not produced, if not all of the machines are operating, this means that there are not enough newspapers. That clearly affects relationships. It affects the way things are done. It has meant that in the past management, not just of The Times but of other newspapers, has not managed. More than one trade union leader has said that he would prefer a strong management to the management that produced the type of managerial decisions of which I was aware 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
To solve the problems of Fleet Street and of The Times tonight, we must resist the temptation to indulge in union bashing. The unions and their leadership, whether Owen O'Brien of NATSOPA or Joe Wade of the NGA, have not hesitated to deal with unofficial strikes. This point has been made in this debate and elsewhere. I am certain, from everything that these men have said, that they will continue to deal with unofficial strikes. What they are asking for is a clear communications system which will take account of the issues ahead.
The second factor, aside from industrial relations, involves poor communications within the newspapers. Although many managers in the newspaper industry have received training and taken part in development schemes and so on, they still have not understood the basic job of communication. There are too many people working in newspapers who do not know


what it is all about. They have not yet understood the important role which they have to fulfil of informing people within an organisation.
The third point which I believe aggravates the newspaper industry more than most and which is central to the whole issue is the shadow of the fear of new technology. New printing technology means a total revolution in the organisation of newspaper printing, cutting across traditional skills. It is not surprising to hear the concern of the NGA. It is talking about a process whereby copy can be sent direct to the composing room by people who are not members of the NGA. There is a great pride in the industry, part of which is reflected in the way in which some of these changes are expected to take place.
It has to be said that improvements have been made. New technology has been introduced in other newspapers. The Daily Mirror is now operating a considerable amount of new technology. Them were extraordinarily long discussions at the Daily Mirror, involving the NGA. A film was made of it and many hon. Members will have seen it. There were long drawn-out discussions. But this technology is operating and in the past few weeks two to four pages have appeared in the Daily Mirror using the new technology. A slower introduction is being planned—and I am sure will he operating—in two other papers. Reveille is not a daily but a fairly active weekly paper. In terms of its printing competence, with a large run, it is fairly important. It has been totally produced for months under a new technology agreement reached between the NGA and the management.
It was said earlier that The Guardian had been rather fortunate, working on the same lines. Let us be fair. The Guardian had not intended to use, and is not likely to think in terms of using, the new technology. There are hard examples of the way in which, despite the worries many craftsmen have about the new technology, they have been prepared to sit with management and work out a proper arrangement.

Mr. Christopher Price: What my hon. Friend has said is true but does he not agree that in the

examples he quoted the negotiations continued over a longer period by years than those envisaged by The Times for its introduction of new technology?

Mr. Moonman: That is right. I believe that The Times had the wrong time scale. It attempted to introduce a fundamental change in technology. Anyone who has seen the equipment at The Times will realise that it is remarkable. If someone sees that equipment who knows what it will mean to the traditional composing room, which is the work with which I am mainly concerned, he will realise that the time scale was impossible.
There are many negotiators who believe that it is not possible to get an agreement until only two or three days remain. That is foolish. It is possible to achieve an agreement within three or four months if there is a clearly defined system of negotiation and where relationships are not bad within an industry. However, the printing industry has many problems. The time scale, even taking into account the initial efforts, was not long enough. There were many problems in the Mirror group and the negotiations continued for far longer than a few months.
I believe that the Government have an interest. I well understand and respect the observations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on this occasion and in the previous debate on 18th May. He is right to say that private discussions have been taking place. Is a bolder course of action demanded?
I am not sure whether Opposition Members want to see Government intervention. When we have dealt with other matters associated with wages and prices they have been inclined not to seek Government intervention. Some of us who think that Government intervention is no bad thing feel that in this instance more than guidance is required. Although I am sure that private negotiations have a part to play, I believe that something bolder is required.
What has the Department of Employment done to implement some of the recommendations that arose from the Royal Commission on the press? What was there in that important Royal Commission that was worthy of immediate introduction rather than delay and waiting for further reference?
What is the role of ACAS? My right hon. Friend said today—he had the courtesy to send me a letter arising from my concern about the issue—that there is the possibility of ACAS being involved. Will he be encouraged to take that a little further? If we are reaching the point of total reality when tomorrow The Times will not appear and when there are possibly seven or 14 days before notices become operative, is there not some way whereby ACAS could take the initiative? That would be a most important development. In practical terms it could get both management and the trade unions off the hook.
The integrity of the union leadership, of the general secretaries of the unions and of the senior management of The Times is not in dispute. Despite some believing that they have various motives, I believe that neither side wants to see the closure of a group of papers with the likely killing in the end of the loss-maker in the group, namely, The Times.
I regret what was said by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). There is no cause for rejoicing when a newspaper group's products will not appear for a period. It is foolish for any hon. Members to go down that road and suggest that there is a justifiable strategy on the part of the newspaper group in taking that course. There is nothing that should cause us to have any feeling of satisfaction. It may be that the newspaper group has so acted because it did not know better. We do not have to justify the extraordinary strategy that means that tomorrow there will not be the appearance of a newspaper.
It is vital that we do everything possible in the next 14 days, through all the associations we have with management and the trade unions, to ensure that a target date is arrived at that is totally acceptable to all the trade unions and that the newspaper group appears again. If there is any value in the debate, it will be seen—certainly not tonight or tomorrow—in establishing a clear target date in 14 days' time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. George Gardiner: Like the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), I declare an interest. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists. I declare a far more personal

interest as I was employed for a number of years by The Sunday Times. I should not like it to be thought by the House or by the country generally that the views put forward by the hon. Member for Sowerby, speaking as a member of the National Union of Journalists, are in any way representative of the views of journalists in Fleet Street or of other employees in Fleet Street.
The hon. Gentleman devoted a good deal of his speech to a straightforward attack on The Times and The Sunday Times management. I know that a number of the difficulties that are inherent in the dispute take a rather individual form. The Times and The Sunday Times are especially dependent on a very heavy load of type-setting. Therefore, computer typesetting is especially relevant to them. However, we cannot close our eyes to the problems that are afflicting many other Fleet Street newspapers.
Even while the argument at The Times has been going on we have seen The Daily Telegraph appearing daily with large white spaces where the pictures should have been. It is fresh in our memory, too, how that same newspaper went out of production for some days over a dispute and how other newspapers have repeatedly lost a large number of copies as a result of the industrial tactics that The Times management is saying must cease as a condition of continued production.
The situation that now faces us at The Times and The Sunday Times was bound to have arisen before very long at some time and somewhere in Fleet Street. Those working on the two newspapers are sick to death of what has and is happening. They know that they cannot continue working without assurances that all the work put into producing a newspaper on a certain day will see the light of day.
I have no wish to question the professional position and integrity of the hon. Member for Sowerby. Indeed, I respect it. However, I do not know when it was that he last worked on a newspaper. Was the hon. Gentleman ever in the position of working on a project throughout a week, building up a case and writing it, only to realise that it would not appear in print? Was he ever engaged in a piece of investigative journalism that required


a great deal of effort over a longer period, only to learn at the last moment that because of a dispute in setting type for the front page or a dispute in the machine room all his work would go up in smoke and nothing would be seen of it? That is intensely frustrating for anybody working on a newspaper. That frustration is shared by people other than journalists.
Those working on The Times and The Sunday Times also know that they cannot continue dealing with advertisers, collecting advertising copy and promising to print it when there is the real risk every week that the paper will not be printed, or that not as many copies will be sold as promised and as embodied in the advertising rates. They cannot continue to pretend that they are providing a service for readers if it is an open question in their minds every Sunday morning whether the newspaper that they have ordered will come through their letter boxes. An industry cannot continue working in that way.
If the issue had not come to a head at Times Newspapers, it would have inevitably come somewhere else. It is not something that can be considered only in some watertight compartment of Times Newspapers.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman)—for whose speech I had rather more sympathy than I had for the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby—brought up and acknowledged the point that modern technology and its introduction is a real and meaningful element in this dispute. The hon. Member for Sowerby seemed to me to be suggesting that it was not.
Journalists and others working in the industry know that we just cannot go on setting our face against the introduction of modern technology. That technology is being exploited in almost every other country which produces free newspapers, and yet it has barely been touched here. This technology has great potential to serve newspaper workers and readers alike.
I acknowledged at the start of my speech that the question of computer type-setting comes up in a particularly acute form for papers such as The Times and The Sunday Times, which have a very heavy volume of type

to be set every week. But this question of modern technology arises elsewhere. One has only to speak to anyone in Fleet Street who has tried to replace some worn-out Linotype machines. People have to go shopping round the world to find second-hand ones because they are not being produced now. No one else wants them. People elsewhere have moved on to something else that is far more advanced and far more efficient. Yet here we are throughout Fleet Street clinging still to the use of these antiquated pieces of machinery.
I have looked at some of the daily newspapers which are produced in Scandinavia. They are producing full colour news pictures every day.for their readers. That is done by using techniques which are not even being talked about in the dispute at Times Newspapers. In those countries there are printers and trade unions. They have these difficulties of attitude. Indeed, workers in those countries undoubtedly had the same natural and understandable fears to which the hon. Member for Basildon referred, yet they have managed to produce newspapers with these new techniques. It really is time that we set out to do it as well.
With all respect to the hon. Member for Basildon, I also say that we cannot accept a situation in which work is needlessly duplicated, when these modern techniques are applied. Can we accept a situation in which the operation of computer keyboards can be made the exclusive preserve of one small union which was formed to cope with and handle a totally different craft?
The situation we are now witnessing, although there are elements in it which are very individual to the papers concerned, might well prove to be something of a catalyst to Fleet Street generally. As The Times put it in a leader this morning:
 There are occasions when one comes to a river which has to be crossed.
That is true. It has to be crossed by The Times. It has to be crossed by others. At the very worst, crossing that river will involve a newspaper collapsing altogether. But, thank goodness, at least we have a newspaper simply saying"We cannot go on like this without the agreements which enable us to guarantee production at more than an hour's notice,


but we are willing to come back and start again when we can get the necessary agreements operating."
At least we have not here finally lost a newspaper, but we could well have done. The first test could well have been over a newspaper closing for good instead of one suspending production, as in this case. We all deeply regret the situation which faces us and which faces all the employees of The Times, The Sunday Times and the supplements, but in the end this action may perform a in service for us all—and for everyone in Fleet Street.
I welcomed the assurance of the Secretary of State that he was not contemplating any intervention at this juncture, and that there was, indeed, little practical help that he could give. I believe that that was an honest and straightforward statement of the position. It is no use producing some arbitration formula which will see us through just another two weeks or so of uninterrupted production. That would not help us one little bit.
This situation has grown up for a multiplicity of reasons, and management as well as trade unions can take some blame for it. It has built up over a number of years. Fleet Street must solve this problem. If it does not solve it, Fleet Street itself will end up by being nothing more than a street name on a tourist map. Fleet Street as we know it will truly die unless it begins very soon to grapple with some of these problems—on which we have had advice galore from Royal Commissions, one after another, but still with no product at the end of all this deliberation.
I referred to the statement in the leader in The Times this morning that
 There are occasions when one comes to a river which has to be crossed.
At least the company is embarking on the task of trying to cross that river. We can do nothing directly in this House to help in that. We might as well be honest and say so. The responsibility lies with those who are in the industry, and in particular with those who are in this company. But 1 should like it to be known that there are many of us in this House, journalists and non-journalists, and also many in Fleet Street, journalists and non-journalists, who will be waiting to offer a hand at the other side of that river to help them back on to the bank.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists and an addict of The Guardian. This means that 1 am a little unable to join in the prevailing lamentation, both here and in the media today, about the threat to a British institution and to a free press. I shall miss The Times in a sense like a gourmet would miss a suet pudding at the end of an epicure meal.
The editors who are now complaining of the threat to a free press show the hypocrisy of those complaints by their willingness to participate in the closure of their own newspapers. This is essentially not so much an issue of a free press as a basic issue of industrial relations.
We all know that Fleet Street has its problems and that The Times has its problems, but those problems have been and are being overstated as an argument for action which is wanted for other reasons rather than because of these problems themselves. The problems of Fleet Street are not one-sided problems. Disputes and stoppages are a problem of management as well as a problem of labour relations.
They are problems which, in the case of The Times, have not precluded the making of profits. So far this year, Times Newspapers Limited has made a net pretax profit of £2.1 million. It could be said that that pre-tax profit is due to low wages and that Times Newspapers tends to lag behind the prevailing level of wages in Fleet Street generally. It could be said that that is the cause of the profit, but it cannot be said that industrial relations and disputes are preventing Times Newspapers from making profits, which is the argument being put forward.
In any case, whatever the problems of Fleet Street, whatever the problems of Times Newspapers, there is no justification for the kind of tactics that we are seeing today, culminating in today's closure. Here we have the tactics of clutching at a closure date, producing a date almost out of the air, almost at random, doing nothing for months, then putting before the unions quite detailed and complex last-minute proposals, and blaming the resulting closure on the unions. The greater the difficulties the newspapers face, the greater the argument for sensitivity,


negotiation and discussion to solve those problems.
Bringing problems to a head in this fashion is the industrial technique either of the bungling amateur or weak management trying desperately, but belatedly, to prove its industrial virility. They are the tactics of Dougal and Zebedee rather than industrial tactics with any thought to the fate of modern Fleet Street. They are irrelevant tactics.
The problems of Times Newspapers Limited are caused by the activities of a few people. Yet the tactics which have been used hit indiscriminately at everyone employed by Times Newspapers—the loyal, the disloyal, the experienced and the inexperienced. Those with the interests of Times Newspapers at heart and those who could not care about Times Newspapers are equally hit by the tactics which have been used. These tactics have the same relevance to industrial relations as the My Lai massacre had to fighting a guerrilla war.
The tactics are irrelevant and wrong because of the impossible task which has been set by the timetable. As has been pointed out, 54 chapels and negotiating units are involved. This is a complex, difficult and detailed structure. The introduction of a new technology on the Daily Mirror, where a less complex, less demanding and less disruptive form of new technology was introduced, took 18 months of negotiation. Times Newspapers Ltd. is trying to get a far more complicated technology accepted within two months.
Substantial job losses are involved. For example, there are 900 NATSOPA members working for Times Newspapers Limited. Apparently 104 of those jobs will eventually disappear, perhaps with compensation and on proper terms, but it is a huge disruption for one union. That is paralleled by all the other unions on Times Newspapers.
There are problems for the earnings of people employed by Times Newspapers. It is not true that their incomes will increase as the management has argued. Yesterday I spoke to the father of the chapel of the revisers. His income will be cut by £5 a week under the new proposals, and that will be for working on five titles whereas he now works on one

title. All 28 members of his chapel will lose earnings under the new proposals.
There will be drastic changes in the jobs which people are now doing and in the functions which they will perform. All this is roped together in one great negotiating bundle to be carried through not in six months, because the deadline was set in April, but in two months because it was not until October that the management laid detailed negotiating proposals before the unions.
I have here the detailed negotiating proposals laid before one section of one union. The Times clerical chapel began to get these detailed proposals from 23rd October onwards in an increasing flood. For one union to digest and discuss all these proposals with its national officials and members was impossible in the time available.
That kind of tactic is not based on any desire to secure a compromise or real agreement. It is so inflexible, with the deadline at the end of it, that it amounts to a strike by management wildcats trying to impose terms and conditions which there is no possibility of negotiating, discussing or obtaining agreement on in the time available. It is a tactic which must make the industrial situation, however good or bad it may be at Times Newspapers, far worse that it is. Any good will which exists must surely evaporate in the face of negotiating tactics and demands such as these enforced in this fashion with this sanction at the end. What possible pride can people have in working for and belonging to an organisation, whether a great British newspaper or not, which treats it employees in such a fashion?
The possibility of a clean, pristine new Times—a symbolic name perhaps rising phoenix-like from the ashes looks increasingly difficult, given the embittering nature of these negotiations and the embittering end to which they are coming. It is more likely to produce a prolonged and bitter period of trench warfare than the clean new beginning to which Times Newspapers Limited is looking.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman will have to write to The Times about it. I am not giving way.

Mr. Cormack: Really!

Mr. Mitchell: I am about to conclude. My conclusion is that, in the face of this situation, embittering consequences will flow not only for Times Newspapers Limited but for the whole of Fleet Street and possibly for the provincial press, because it could spread to the provincial press.

Mr. Cormack: The fact is that the people involved are not bitter at the moment. It is speeches like the one being made by the hon. Gentleman which will make them bitter.

Mr. Mitchell: The people to whom I have spoken are extremely bitter. That goes for all sections to which I have spoken. They are bitter and dismayed about the tactics which have been used. They are at a total loss to understand why such tactics have been used on them. People who have a pride in working for Times Newspapers Limited and a feeling of involvement have now become hostile because of this situation.
I should regard ministerial intervention as out of the question and having difficult consequences, but there is an argument for an impartial inquiry, because claims and counter-claims are now getting confused and bitterness is growing. The consequences are dangerous. The argument will be prolonged and bitter. Therefore, there is an argument for an impartial inquiry which will give a calm objective analysis and obtain the information which now, thanks to the tactics of management, will be difficult to get in view of the bitterness which is likely to follow.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to appeal to the House. There are 38 minutes left before we start the wind-up speeches, but there are about eight hon. Members who are just as anxious to speak as those who have already spoken. I should be grateful if hon. Members would bear that point in mind.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am sure that there are particularities in this dispute, but I am not competent to discuss them. I am not an insider in this industry, but its whole purpose and justification are to provide something for the

public. It is as a member of the public and a reader of The Times and other newspapers that I shall make my short contribution.
Overmanning in the newspaper industry is not new. It has been going on and building up for two generations. It was referred to and assessed in the Royal Commission report in 1961. That report concluded that London newspaper offices were overmanned by at least 30 per cent. I do not think that in the 17 years which have passed since the report of that Royal Commission anything much has been done about that overmanning. During that period many famous or well-known newspapers, both dailies and Sundays, have disappeared. That has been highly regrettable.
There must be something wrong in a newspaper industry such as ours if newspapers with circulations which by world standards are vast—between 1 million and 3 million—are unable to pay their way; newspapers in other countries do not even dream of such circulations. The answer is that costs have been allowed to creep up and techniques have fallen behind.
One cause of the present dispute is the introduction of the new techniques about which we have heard. However, as has been emphasised, the general problem is overmanning, not the new techniques which are under discussion.
All the overmanning is the accumulation of past disputes largely about the introduction of new techniques. Each group of overmanning—of ghost workers, of people being paid for nothing or for doing less than a day's work—is the terminal moraine of some argument about the introduction of new techniques in the past. They were agreed to on the condition that no jobs were lost. The more efficient machine made its contribution perhaps, but the number of people on the payroll was not diminished.
What this debate is really about is resistance to change and the suggestion that it ought to take place more slowly. In this country techniques are introduced more slowly than anywhere else in the world. If it is the newspapers, one can see the new technique introduced in the United States of America and on the Continent of Europe while we still are arguing about it here.
The case being put forward by the hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Moon-man) and for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) and others who have a professional interest in this matter, is that we ought to be so worried about the change and its effects on employment that we should go more slowly, when the truth is that we ought to go faster. The prosperity of this country depends upon a rapid acceptance of change and not upon going slow. The London newspaper industry is the most striking example of our underlying national fault.
Naturally, it is easy for someone who is not in an industry to talk about the necessity for rapid change, because his job is not immediately at stake. But everybody in the community is subject to the effects of change. I suppose one might call a General Election an occasion when the public looks at the possibility of new techniques, new technology. I am inclined to say—it may be a rather unusual thing to say—that we have too much security in this country and we are becoming security-minded. It colours our whole approach to all the technical and managerial changes of modern society. I am not competent to say what one should do with the members of the National Graphical Association who were trained as linotype operators—and, I am afraid, grossly overpaid for it—who now face the extinction of their jobs and skills.
There must be an answer to these problems. The difficulty of solving them must never be an excuse for delaying the onset of change. A modern society ought to be able to look after its members, to help them through the difficult periods and still be in the forefront of technical advance. Therefore, I believe that The Times management is absolutely right to say, in effect, that 17 years is more than enough, and that this matter must now be brought to a head and the national newspaper industry should no longer be the supreme example of backwardness, overmanning and resistance to change in our country.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: There are those of us in the House who would say that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) belongs to a profession which is more noted for its restrictive practices than is the profession of journalism, to which I belong.

I, too, must declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists.

Mr. Ronald Bell: There are no restrictive practices at all in the law—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]—and far from resisting change the House is changing the law every day that it sits.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Whitehead: My hon. Friends are making my point for me by their general derision.
I share one other thing with almost everybody who has spoken in this debate —and I congratulate the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) on the way in which he introduced it—and that is a feeling of almost total impotence in watching this drama unfold. It has unfolded since 26th April and everyone involved, at some stage or another, has disbelieved, or affected to disbelieve, that we would reach the point where we are now.
It is almost as though one were watching the beginning of the First World War. The armies are in their trenches, the treaties are invoked and the reluctant neutrals have been dragged in. Here and there those who are really not part of the dispute at all know that today, tomorrow or the next day it may well involve them. Meanwhile, the supreme war lords sit in their offices in New Printing House Square, no doubt in daily communication with the all-highest sitting with his money in Toronto, deploying their battle plans.
They have their supporters here in the House. I greatly regret the tone of the speeches of some hon. Members in this debate who have appeared to welcome what is happening. Glistening eyes have greeted what has happened."My goodness me, our chaps are going over the top "—that is the feeling that one has had.
The Times leader suggests that there are rivers which have to be crossed. I suggest to the editor of The Times that he must find a bridge first, otherwise one falls, and falls into deep waters.
The deep waters into which I think The Times management has fallen—and I say this with regret because there are faults on both sides in this dispute—essentially lie in attempting to tackle three disputes at once, in the wrong way and on the wrong timetable. Of course there is a problem about overmanning; of course there is a problem about new


technology and about the loss of production through disputes which cannot be controlled by unions or management. But it is the attempt to tackle all three simultaneously and to invoke this perilous deadline, plucked out almost at random, as someone has said, that has led The Times into the present position. That is the problem.
The fact that only two out of 54 chapels have signed up to the present time indicates the anticipation of those who provoked this trouble. Either they did not know that only two out of 54 chapels were going to sign—in which case they are very stupid and should not be managers —or they did know and have been, as some suspect, sitting it out for a long struggle in which they can shed the more recalcitrant of their employees. It is one or the other. I cannot believe that this situation arose purely by accident.
The problems which we face are those which could have been foreseen and which ought to have told The Times management that the implications of this deadline would not be successful. Let me isolate the problems as they have been referred to in the debate. It is not the case that the problem of new technology can be seen purely in terms of union resistance. There are grave suspicions in the minds of some of the people who work for Times Newspapers Ltd. about the SDC system which it wants to install. I saw a quote the other day from Mr. Harold Evans, the editor of The Sunday Times. referring to this. He said to his assembled employees:
 Two years ago I told you I have seen the future of Fleet Street and it works. I now have to tell you that it doesn't.
He was, I believe, right in more senses than he knew, and he was referring there to the new technology and to some of the great difficulties which The Times management is encountering with it. That is over and above the great resistance to these innovations which, of course, one encounters unless there is sensitive negotiation on the shop floor.
I was extremely interested in Mr. Hugh Walters's letter in The Times today in which he quoted the leading article for 29th November 1814, when there was equal resistance from the compositors to change which was threatening jobs and bringing in innovations at least as profound as those that are faced today. If

the work force is told that it has to face a slimming down in this exercise and then sees that it has been presented as a bovine work force resisting new technology, it is naturally deeply resentful when it finds that the large majority of the thousand jobs that are to be lost are nothing to do with the new technology. Those concerned are deeply resentful—as some of the people who came here to see us yesterday said—because some of the industrial disputes about which people have made such play in this debate have arisen because the existing machinery is old and worn out and cannot be replaced when protests are made about the safety of working with it. That is the difficulty here.
It is true that X-million conies of the group's papers have been lost this year, but not all of the disputes have occurred through bloody-mindedness. In this debate nobody has adequately answered the point that The Guardian, printing on the same machinery, in the same place and with the same people, has not had the history of disputes which Times Newspapers Ltd. has had this year.

Mr. Critchley: The answer to the problem of The Guardian is simple, surely. The Guardian has not enough money in the bank to enable it to challenge the unions over the new technology.

Mr. Whitehead: Ah, there the game is given away. There is no doubt about that. I shall come to that in a moment; indeed, I may as well do so now. Why is Times Newspapers Ltd. doing this at this time? The answer to that, I am sure, is that it has the money, as has just been said. It has the money to fight a war on all fronts—or so it thinks, because it has a lovely oil bonanza, because there has been a shift from paternal to filial ownership of the paper and because different attitudes are now prevailing.
" Why not take them all on?"say these new frontiersmen."Why not settle all the problems at once?"But when problems are hydra-headed, as they are in Fleet Street, that kind of attitude does not get one very far. It has not got the management very far when one considers the position that it is in now.
The suspicion—it is no more than a suspicion in my mind, but I was disabused of it by Mr. Duke Hussey when we discussed this matter with him—is that


The Times management decided that it would sort out the unions, and it decided to do that once it had the money to do it, and once it could afford a dispute on its terms of six months or more, involving the shedding of many of the people who now work for this organisation.
The tragedy of this is that some of the first to go, and some of those who will be most profoundly affected, are not at all involved in the kind of disputes that have been cited in this debate. The secretaries on the paper, for example, who are the people on almost the shortest notice, will be out after the 14 days to which reference has been made. They are not parties to some of the disputes.
In conclusion, I hope that the next 14 days will be used by my right hon. Friend and by everyone present who has any influence on either side of this dispute—there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have that—to bring the two parties together. At the beginning of my speech I used the parallel of the beginning of a war and of the crowds who cheered at the beginning. This is rather like that position. It is much easier to settle a war in the early stages. It is very difficult once it becomes prolonged, once hostilities have gone on, once positions are entrenched, and once bitterness extends not merely to the parts of this empire now in dispute but to all the provincial parts of it as well. If The Times operations in Manchester shut down, a great slice additionally of the press, including The Guardian, will be threatened far more significantly than it is at present.
That is the reason why we should have less partiality in the debate and more peacemaking. I know that we shall see that from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that we shall see it from every other person of good sense and good intentions, on both sides of the House.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) will forgive me if, in response to your request for brevity, Mr. Speaker, I do not follow him precisely in terms of what he said. I congratulate him on the way in which he organised his material so that he got a great deal of it into his speech in a very concise form.
I must declare a brief interest as a consultant in the past to Times Newspapers, although the services that I have rendered to that organisation have been wholly irrelevant to the subject that we are now debating.
I speak as the Member in whose constituency Fleet Street falls, though Times Newspapers is a refugee from my constituency and has moved into the constituency of my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger).
The hon. Member for Derby, North spoke about the First World War. I join with him in regretting that this debate has become a series of entrenched positions, representing much less well than the protagonists to the issues the points and the arguments that underlie their respective cases.
That distinguished constituent of one of my predecessors, Dr. Samuel Johnson, said the last word about the way in which a deadline can concentrate a man's mind. It is a good thing that the mind of the House has been concentrated today. However, I am not sure that today we can achieve anything more than two simple things. The first is to draw the attention of those involved in this dispute to the national importance which the House attaches to the solution of it. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has emphasised that. The second is to identify whether there are any initiatives which the Government can take to accelerate the finding of a solution. As in so many human affairs, timing is of crucial importance. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Employment for the recognition of this, which was apparent in his remarks.
I am not one of those in favour of permanent Government interference in private matters, however important they may be for the public. Though I am appalled at the thought of being without The Times for weeks on end, I am in favour of management and unions being left to reach agreement on the outstanding issues, at least for the time being. I am confident that they will reach agreement. I am sure that the whole House wishes them well in that endeavour.
Finally, I share the views of the Secretary of State, which were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet,


East (Mr. Aitken), by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and by others, about the extreme problems which new technology poses. It poses them now and it will continue to do so for the industrial West.
Various hon. Members have criticised Times Newspapers and its management for its time scale in approaching the matter of the new technology. I shall not comment on that, though from my industrial experience I have been aware that this new technology has been approaching for at least the past decade, and if I could have been aware of it from outside the industry, I am certain that those in the industry must have been aware of it also.
On the industrial relations aspect, which is different from the technology aspect but is linked to it, I have no personal expertise which enables me to pass judgment on the time scale that has been adopted. From whichever side the criticism comes, the House does itself a disservice when it adopts a posture or a position on matters on which it is necessarily less well informed and about which it is less intimately involved than those outside the House who are parties to particular industrial issues. If any hon. Member disagrees with me, I ask him to reflect on his or her reaction when any industrialist or trade unionist sounds forth outside the House about our inadequacies and the reforms that we should institute in parliamentary affairs. What I am certain of is that the job of the House—here I join cause with the hon. Member for Derby, North—is to reinforce the forces that make for reconciliation and not to exacerbate the forces that make for confrontation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the earlier a solution is found, the better it will be.
My remarks are guided neither by a sense of appeasement nor by Panglossian complacency. But I believe profoundly that the resolution of this matter lies primarily with those who are employed in the industry and who understand it. My one wish is that they achieve that solution solidly and conclusively at the earliest possible date. We in the House and the whole country will be better for it.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The dispute at Times Newspapers is not simply a problem of industrial relations. It is, sadly, one of a total breakdown of human relations. I have long believed that important as written agreements are between all those involved in an enterprise, I say this as a journalist —and especially so because of the intensity, strain and stress involved in the production of a newspaper—it is much more important to have openness, understanding, belief and trust between the people in the various positions in the particular publication.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) is not in his place at present, because among the more stupid of his remarks was a rejoicing at what is going on in New Printing House Square. I hope that in the morning he will regret that phrase. It is extremely regrettable. Where he will not read it will be in The Times tomorrow morning.
The other thing that must be made clear at the outset is that there was no possibility whatsoever that The Times,/i> management would meet this self-imposed deadline of 30th November. How could there possibly be any chance of a successful outcome to the negotiations when the whole way in which they were set up rested on the willingness of one party to surrender? It was not an invitation to New Printing House Square. It was an invitation to a caravan on Luneburg Heath, because implicit in this—this is the fact of the matter and why we are having this debate—is that unless and until everybody involved in this matter signed on the dotted line in the way in which the management insisted, the management would declare a lockout. The whole way in which this matter started implied that someone was going to surrender.
We have had lectures from the Opposition Benches about people on The Times, in essence, being Luddites, There is not one group of workers on,i>The Times, however suspicious they may be of the consequences of the introduction of the new technology, which has declined to negotiate on the application and introduction of that new technology. That is a fact. What one of the unions has said is"We are not going to do this while you are


holding a pistol to our heads." That is the position and the basis on which the management of Times Newspapers set off these negotiations. In that context, I am bound to say that it leads one to the regrettable conclusion that about the only thing that has changed in The Times in 193 years is the date on the front page, because it implies an attitude that was prevalent in that establishment when the first issue went to press.

Mr. Burden: In his repudiation of the time scale of The Times—and I understand that—does the hon. Gentleman accept that when trade unions make threats about militant action, and so on, they should adopt the same attitude of restraint which he says The Times should impose because of the difficulty of reaching agreement?

Mr. Corbett: We are talking not about strong or weak management, but about effective management. We are not talking about a document labelled"disputes procedure ". We are talking about arrangements being made between groups of people at work—but not by people who never put the nuts on the bolts, or go down to the machine pit, or wherever else—in which everyone can have confidence.
I intervened earlier when my right hon. Friend was speaking in relation to the number of lost copies. Because of time, I shall not go into the constant, costly interruption with the livelihood of newsagents, let alone readers, which comes from night after night late deliveries of newspapers to the main line London termini as a result of management decisions. I leave that on one side. In that intervention I said to my right hon. Friend that the roots of a number of these disputes—not all of them by any manner of means—go back, I am told, to complaints from men working machines which should be down the road in South Kensington, who have called in the Health and Safety Executive to have a look at their complaints, who have asked it to make recommendations to management to deal with these matters and have then got no response from management.
With the increasing attention which the House has insisted should be paid to matters of health and safety at work, those

men then declined to operate that machinery until something was done about it. Yet that goes down in The Times black book as"an unofficial stoppage ".
I want to make another point in relation to the new technology. I hope that no hon. Member will say, as was said earlier, that it is simply a matter of applying new technology, the faster the better and with no thought to the consequences. I hope no one will suggest that this debate is not simply about the loss of jobs, because the jobs about which we are talking will be gone for ever. The men so displaced will have no chance of finding alternative work anywhere else in the industry. I hope that no hon. Member will suggest that in that circumstance anyone will rush forward and volunteer for that process. We must assert in this debate that with this new technology people must be in charge of the application of those machines, rather than the machines being allowed to run riot over large sections of our industry.
The Times management still has it within its control to see that this lockout does not occur—and lockout it is. Even now, it can see the folly of the whole way in which it has gone about this business. I had hoped, particularly from The Times, that there would be more concern and care about press freedom. Had this lockout and stoppage arisen by a different route, we would have had lectures about the threat to press freedom. Yet the tragic reality of what will happen tonight is that the proprietors of The Times are taking the lever of press freedom into their hands and denying people copies of The Times from tomorrow. That, I hope, will teach everyone in this industry a lesson.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: In the interests of brevity, I am sure that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) will understand if I do not follow too closely his ill-tempered and ill-thought-out remarks.
I, too, must declare an interest, in that I was employed by Times Newspapers for some years in a commercial capacity. I sometimes think that the difference between myself and my colleagues and many others who worked on that newspaper was that we tried to make money for the newspaper.
When I joined The Times newspaper about 11½ years ago, I recall that after a few days I had to change my office. In those days I was fairly new to civilian life, and was certainly very new, indeed, to the ways of trade unions and how they operate. I picked up a small filing cabinet on my desk and made to take it to my new office. I was warned very strictly by a member of some chapel or other that I had better put it down pretty quickly, otherwise everyone would be out on strike because I was doing something which should be done by a member of the engineering chapel.
Later in the day, after I had gone out, done my work and returned to the office, people were still shifting our furniture around. I asked the same gentleman whether it was possible for me to lift my own wastepaper basket and take it into my new office. After due consideration he replied that he thought that would be all right. That is the sort of problem with which the management of Times Newspapers has been dealing ever since the end of the Second World War.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) is not in the Chamber, first, because I should like to congratulate him on his excellent speech, and, secondly, because I shall say something about one of his forebears. Bearing in mind what happened at about 3.25 this afternoon, I know that one has to be very careful about what one says about the ancestors of those who sit in the House. But there are in Fleet Street the Beaverbrooks and Rothermeres of this world, and many of the faults in Fleet Street today stem from the 1950s when the managements of our great national newspapers were so greedy for circulation that they gave in to almost every demand that was made by every union. They surrendered the responsibility for running their own newspapers and even conceded the right to recruit to many of the individual chapels. That being said, we have now reached a stage in 1978 when, at long last, one great national newspaper—Times Newspapers —is willing to stand up, take the consequences and puts its own house in order.
The overmanning in Fleet Street has been talked about at great length this afternoon. The other day I thought that it would be interesting to table a Question about the earnings of Mr. Mickey

Mouse, who I gather has been recently employed in Fleet Street on some newspaper. I was informed that it was not possible to table a Question about the taxation affairs of individuals because there might indeed be a Mr. Michael Mouse who was working on The Observer. Therefore, I was not allowed to table that Question. But with over 30 per cent. overmanning in Fleet Street, is it any wonder that our national newspapers are losing money? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) talked about the problem of overmanning and put the facts very succinctly indeed.
When a newspaper is subjected, as Times Newspapers Ltd. has been over the past years, to so many wildcat strikes, it loses an enormous amount of revenue. Little has been said today about the actual mechanics of the way in which newspapers are run. Newspapers such as The Times are dependent more on advertising revenue than on any other form of revenue to make themselves enough money to run. Unlike the so-called popular newspapers, which are dependent on their cover charge, papers such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times are dependent to a great extent on advertising revenue.
If one of the big public companies takes a series of full-page advertisements in a newspaper such as The Times and the paper is subjected to a strike on that particular day, that is all right because that advertisement can appear the following Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday or whenever it may be. But in a newspaper such as The Times there is the back page with its personal column and columns of births, deaths, marriages and property advertising. These things make enormous sums of money for the newspaper. When one has a strike on a newspaper such as The Times, all that is lost and can never be recovered. Every day that The Times does not appear the loss of classified revenue is absolute. That revenue cannot be regained. That is why I am convinced that The Times management has decided that enough is enough and that now is the time to stand firm and to put its house in order.
I know that we in this House have no powers in this matter, thank God. All that we can do is talk and advise. My advice


to the management of The Times is to stand firm and not to give way.
When the NGA says that it will not talk under duress, it must consider this matter. What is the difference when employees go on a wildcat strike at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m.? Trade unionists must learn that what is sauce for them is also sauce for the management. The Times management is standing up to the mad men of Fleet Street. It is standing firm against the wildcat strikers of Printing House Square, and I say good luck to it.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: This debate has been largely dominated by the journalistic profession. I have the headquarters of the printing unions in my borough, and many of my constituents are workers on The Times or in Fleet Street generally.
The Times headline today said that the management thought that this was a river which it had to cross. I wish it could have approached the issue on the basis that there were bridges that it must build between itself and the printing unions. It was a great pity that this whole question arose in a letter of 26th April which, at that time, contained the deadline of 30th November. What is even more regrettable is the dilatory way in which the The Times has approached negotiation, as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
I speak with particular reference to NATSOPA, whose headquarters are in my borough. It replied to the management letter on 17th May welcoming the suggestion of a meeting with the management. NATSOPA eventually got a reply to that letter saying that the management would be in touch at the earliest opportunity. It took until 24th July for a communication to be sent from The Times to NATSOPA, and it was not until 26th September that it was possible for the two sides to get together.
The current situation is that NATSOPA and the majority of the servicing unions covering The Times have indicated that they are prepared to recommend to their members a new disputes procedure which will enable the negotiations to continue on these far-reaching and complex problems. They are prepared to recommend to their members the new disputes machinery

which will allow the negotiations to continue in an atmosphere free from the interruptions to production which anyone interested in the welfare of Fleet Street generally must find regrettable.
Even at this late stage I ask The Times management to accept the offer of these printing and service unions which are prepared to recommend a new disputes machinery to enable discussion on complex matters, proposals for which only came to light in October. Failure to do so will lead to the conclusion that The Times management never had the slightest intention of negotiating and that its letter of 26th April, without any prior negotiation and without proposals until October, meant that it intended to allow any negotiations to take place only after the paper had closed.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Lamborn) was not able to make a fuller speech. I sympathise with him about the short time that he was allowed.
The Times is a paper of international reputation and when it is not published it is a matter which affects the honour of this country and its reputation for industrial relations throughout the world. Therefore, this is an important debate.
Although I have my doubts as to whether the House of Commons is the best place to debate industrial relations issues in a delicate situation like this, I accept that the House has a great interest and must have the opportunity to discuss the matter.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) on the way he introduced the debate. The tone of his speech and everything that he said was just right for the occasion. I do not feel quite the same about all the speeches that have been made tonight, but some hon. Members may say that about my speech. For all that, I do not think that this is a situation which any management would contemplate lightly, because its jobs are at risk just as much as anyone else's.
The owners of Times Newspapers said that they would pay no dividends for five years and that two-thirds of any savings achieved would be repaid to the workers in increased wages. That is not exactly


the old-fashioned approach to drive people out of jobs. The management is worried and I do not accept that it has in any way sought a confrontation of this nature.
If Labour Members consulted the leaders of the trade unions involved and asked them their views on the managing director of Times Newspapers, Mr. Duke Hussey, none of those leaders would say that he was in any way the sort of man who wanted to see The Times close or jobs lost as a result of the closure.
This debate is symptomatic of many deep-seated problems in the whole of our industrial society. We could be doing so much better as a nation than we are. We are still prisoners of our past to far too great an extent, as has been borne out time and again in this debate. To find the right solution is of great importance, but we must not run away with the belief that the solution to the problems of The Times will solve other problems in Fleet Street or outside. I am by no means certain that it could or it would.
I have no doubt that the management of The Times had to take a firm line. After all, that was what the union leaders had been asking it to do. Let me quote from the speech which I made in this House on 18th May. In the course of my remarks, I said:
 A leading trade unionist said to me this week Fleet Street is in a mess because both sides have made it so. Bad management has been chiefly responsible, but the unions have lost control at national level and union leaders have been stripped of their authority.'"—"[Official Report, 18th May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 793.]
I put that statement to a leading manager in Fleet Street, and he agreed with every word of it.
For that reason, we have no right to complain when the management of Times Newspapers starts to manage properly and firmly and we then run into trouble. Times Newspapers was losing copies. It was losing its reputation as the producer of a reliable newspaper long before any ultimatum was issued. The effect that this has had on newsagents, on advertising and on the industry generally in the country must not be underestimated.
Shortly after the announcement was made, the attitude of the union leaders was very reasonable. In view of the time, I shall not quote exactly what they

said, but all of them made very reasonable statements. They recognised that something had to be done. Perhaps I might quote one of them. Mr. Bill Keys said:
There is no doubt that industry cannot support the losses much longer and there is a dangerous challenge from other media. I welcome this move by Times Newspapers if it is a catalyst to bring order into Fleet Street.
That is just one of the statements which were made, and the other union leaders made similar statements.
The complaints today and the complains which have been made to me by union leaders, which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West also mentioned, are twofold. The first is that there has been a deadline. As several of my hon. Friends said, deadlines operate both ways. No one can say by any stretch of the imagination that the unions have not put deadlines on the newspaper managements time and time again. No one can doubt that. Anyone who tries to deny that is simply not looking at the facts in an even-handed way. They put on deadlines. I do not think that it can be unreasonable for a management to say that there has to he a deadline.
When a management puts on a deadline, however, it is called confrontation. When unions demand more cash or improved terms, that is not"confrontation "; it is"a legitimate demand." I should like to know where confrontation begins and where a legitimate demand ends, and we have to keep that clear between the parties involved.
The second complaint concerns the lack of time to negotiate. I have been through the arguments about the delay in getting out the terms and conditions for the new arrangements which were to be made with a good deal of care. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moon-man) criticised six months as not being long enough. If it had not been six months but two years, would that have made any difference? I doubt it very much, and I think that anyone who has anything to do with negotiation knows that to be true.
I think that there was delay and that the management is vulnerable to criticism about not getting on with the negotiation sooner. There were a number of reasons for it, as we know, but management did


not get on with it very quickly. On the other hand, I have been shocked by the labyrinth of different agreements, because the volumes of paper are beyond belief.
I must confess that I did not have the slightest idea of the contracts of agreement and negotiations which had taken place in that industry over a number of years. There are literally volumes of them, and they concern the most nonsensical matters that I have ever heard. Let me take one example. Mr. Barry Fitzpatrick is on record as complaining that there were 59 different bargaining units and that he had not the time to negotiate his in the time made available to him. He said:
 The management does not seem to have realised the complications involved in grouping editorial secretaries with secretaries in the advertising department.
That is a very difficult problem.
 In the past these groups have had separate agreements. Now I shall have to get them all together and try to get agreement on a great many details. For example there are clauses specifying that secretaries have to make tea or coffee.
What are we up to? This is 1978, but we are behaving as though we were living in years gone by. It is a simply horrifying state of affairs. It is rather like watching a bad play. One cannot be certain whether to laugh at certain passages or to cry at them. It is quite ridiculous, and I cannot believe that we ought not to get the two sides together as soon as we can, because a lot of these difficulties need wiping out altogether.
The vast majority of the people involved are perfectly reasonable. They are desperately worried about their future and the uncertainties surrounding them. On the whole, the people from the NATSOPA chapels whom I have met in the last few days are not motivated by malice. One or two may be, but the majority are not. They want to see a sensible settlement, but they are worried about the uncertainties surrounding their future.
I think that, reluctantly, we have to come to the conclusion that there has to be a short natural break, and the shorter, the better. During the natural break, the parties concerned must get on with restructuring the work force and with reorganising and reducing the number of

bargaining units. If that happens, it will be followed by a procedural agreement which will be more orderly and which can work much better. In fact, I believe that it must be that way round: there must be a restructuring and a reorganisation first. Then a procedural agreement will come almost automatically from it.
The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) said that all the emphasis had been put on the new techniques and on using new equipment. We argued that one out. In my view, it is overmanning as well as that, and overmanning has an important part to play in the negotiations.
The introduction of new technology is always difficult. But this does not mean the elimination of the NGA. A lot of the jobs will remain. It will not happen overnight. Those who are not required have the chance of voluntary redundancy. There is to be no compulsory redundancy. There are redundancy payments available of up to £25,000. It is a fact that a number of people wish to take that redundancy who at the moment cannot.
We have to be sensible about this. We all recognise the emotions of people who do not want to change and who find change difficult. We have to recognise as well that we are dealing with a proud, skilled craft industry. But other proud, skilled craft industries have had to make changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) pointed out, changes are going on in other parts of the world and in other parts of Fleet Street. There is no way in which we can turn back the clock.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said that some of the machinery was clapped out. We know that to be true. However, in a letter which I received from Times Newspapers, it was said:
 We have counter stackers in the machine room which are only replacement machinery which we have bought at great cost. We cannot use them because we have claims from people of up to £5 a night not for working them but because they are in the same room.
Both sides of the House and the whole nation have to accept that change has to come about. They should get round the negotiating table either tonight or tomorrow morning. I appeal to the management to make some positive gesture to create a better climate in which those negotiations make take place. I appeal


to the unions to accept that gesture and to make one themselves by all agreeing to get on with the negotiations. I appeal to the House to allow the negotiations to proceed in a quiet and reasoned way. At the end of the day, a solution has to be found and this great newspaper has to survive and show the rest of the world that Britain can make changes and make them peacefully and efficiently.

7.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I shall not take up much of the time of the House. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) was correct to start his speech by urging upon the House the need for caution in these matters and the need to avoid language that might make matters worse. I entirely agree, and, for that reason, I am glad that he did not pursue the rather less temperate example set by the Leader of the Opposition who, in a circulated press statement, said about this deplorable situation
 I wish Lord Thomson well. I wish him victory ".
The language in that circular is not the sort of language that helps industrial relations. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Lamborn) made a useful contribution to the debate when he referred to an editorial in The Times today which said:
 There are occasions when one comes to a river which has to be crossed. Whether you wade or swim or hop there is no security until you get to the other side.
I very much hope that in contemplating the various ways of getting across the river, the possibility of building a bridge, has not been ruled out.
I appreciate the general theme of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft, who suggested that in this situation, where change is being resisted, it is not just a blind and obdurate resistance to change. It is not merely a question of change of practice and not merely loss of skills, important though that it; it is a question of the loss of livelihoods, very often by people who may have little prospect of getting a similar job or even a job at all. That is what we have to bear in mind.
That is not to argue in support of those who resist change; it is an argument in favour of understanding the problems involved. The right hon. Gentleman

talked about the need to carry out restructuring first—I think that that was the way he put it—and to change the procedures afterwards, but that calls for further consideration on his part. What he seemed to be saying was that industry should carry out the necessary changes and decide afterwards what was the best way of going about it. The sensible way would be to do it the other way round.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) asked what my Department had done to secure implementation of some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the press. The Commission's recommendations were directed to action that needed to be taken by management and unions. They were directed not at the Government, but at the industry itself. I hope that those in the industry on whom these recommendations have a bearing are examining what they can do to respond, and are, indeed, responding.
My hon. Friend also asked about the role of ACAS and urged it to take an initiative. He will recognise, as will the House, that, although ACAS has been keeping very closely in touch with what has been happening and has kept itself very fully informed—the chairman has had an exchange of views with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—it cannot intervene until asked to do so. If it is asked by the parties, it will respond immediately. It is for ACAS to use its judgment about how it responds to a request for its services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon said that he understood my right hon. Friend's position and the difficulties that face him, but wondered whether a bolder approach might not have been more helpful. It has been recognised in the debate that, for my right hon. Friend to intervene usefully and effectively, he has to have regard to the wishes of the parties themselves. Equally, he has to be assured before becoming involved that he has an effective role. It is a dual question both of his standing and of his judgment.
If, as now seems inevitable, the decision to suspend publication is implemented, we may very well be moving into a changed situation. In that changed situation, if the parties feel that he can usefully contribute to a solution, my right hon. Friend will be ready to respond to


any request from them. Certainly, he remains ready, as he has been all along, to talk at any time to any of the parties involved. Clearly he cannot act to bring the parties together until it is their common wish that he should do so.
I welcome the concluding remarks of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft in which he urged the parties to seek to establish sufficient common will, if not common ground, to reach a solution, and perhaps to respond to what has been said in the House and to say"Yes, we would like the Secretary of State to make his services available and for us to come together in the kind of dialogue which we hope will lead to a solution."
My right hon. Friend will not miss any favourable opportunity that arises. I hope that the parties will respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon referred to negotiations within 14 days. I do not see why we need to talk of 14 days. There is no reason why, within days or hours, there should not be a response to the appeals made in the House, even at this last minute of the eleventh hour, for the parties to come together and reach a common understanding on a sensible way ahead. My hon. Friend said that it was vital to use the next 14 days. I think it is vital to use every day without necessarily working to any target date.
Although a number of points have been raised, I think that in the light of what we all understand about the way the House responds to industrial relations difficulties, it would be unwise if I allowed myself to be tempted to respond to some intemperate comments in the debate. I end my remarks with the appeal that I have made and which has also been made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft and other hon. Members.

Question put and negatived.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is an important Bill which makes far reaching provisions for a vital industry. Our merchant fleet is the fourth largest in the world and provides not only a major contribution to our balance of payments but employment for 80,000 people at sea, without including many more jobs on land. It is a long and complex Bill. It is intended to deal with the most pressing matters requiring legislation which have emerged since the last major Merchant Shipping Act in 1970. They range from the need to ratify a number of important international conventions dealing with the training of crews, improved safety standards for ships and the prevention of pollution to the modernisation of our discipline procedures on merchant ships and fishing vessels; from the widening of powers to hold inquiries into shipping casualties to the reorganisation of our pilotage service. The theme underlying most of the Bill is the safety of our ships and our seafarers.
Turning to the main features of the Bill, I refer initially to those relating to the safety and welfare of seafarers and to pollution prevention. These provisions are contained basically in clauses 20 to 22. The background to these provisions is that we beleive that we owe it to our seafaring community to ensure that their conditions of health and safety are brought up to date.
The Bill gives us very wide powers to make regulations to promote safety and health on United Kingdom registered ships. Our existing powers are inadequate and lack the flexibility needed as marine technology and new techniques in the operation of ships develop more quickly. To meet this need, the Bill follows the flexible approach adopted under the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 for regulating safety and health in land-based industries, including strengthening the powers of my inspectors in discharging their tasks of enforcing the regulations.


This is generally accepted as the appro- priate way in which to draft new safety legislation.
In recognition of the breadth of those powers, the Bill includes a statutory requirement to consult those affected be- fore making regulations or giving approvals—a practice which is already well- established in merchant shipping. I am sure that the House will approve this approach as a sensible way to proceed in making wide-ranging regulations which require detailed discussion with those affected by them.
I pay tribute to the hard work of all those on both sides of the shipping industry, as well as to those within Government, who contributed to the report"Safety of Seamen at Work ". This recommended that accident reporting should be mandatory and that there should be regulations about protective clothing and equipment, and to help en- sure that ships provide a safe working environment. These will be backed by the revised comprehensive code of safe working practices. We shall act on the report, which should ensure that seamen at work are at least as well protected as arc those ashore. A similar study relating to fishermen has just been completed and the report and code of safe working practices will be published early nest year.
Probably the greatest single contribu- tion that can be made to marine safety is through the improvement of standards of competence of crews. The Inter- governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation has given special attention to that need in recent years and the convention on standards of training, certi- fication and watchkeeping agreed last July represents a most important advance. It was largely through initiatives taken by our delegation at the conference that the convention includes mandatory minimum requirements for the crews of tankers carrying oil, chemicals and liquefied gas. The Bill will give us the extra powers that we need to ratify the convention, which we propose to do in 1980—the target date recommended by the EEC.
The Bill also gives us the powers we need to implement the agreements reached at the IMCO conference on tanker safety and pollution prevention held last Febru-

ary. This conference agreed a new protocol to the international convention for the safety of life at sea 1974 which contained the following main provisions. First, all new and existing tankers over 10,000 gross registered tons must have two separately operable remote steering gear control systems.
Secondly, all ships over 10,000 gross registered tons must have two independent radar systems. Thirdly, most larger tankers must be fitted with an inert gas system to reduce the risk of explosion which is a particular hazard when washing tanks. Fourthly, more frequent inspections are required of older tankers where experience shows deficiencies in equipment are more prevalent. These and other provisions of the protocol all contribute greatly to maritime safety.
The February conference also concluded a protocol to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships 1973 which was, to some degree, ahead of its time and has so far been ratified by only three countries with very small merchant fleets. The Bill will permit us to implement the provisions of the convention and protocol dealing with oil pollution by the 1981 target date. The provisions include segregated ballast tanks in new oil tankers above 20,000 tons deadweight which are to be protectively located in order to reduce the risk of outflow in the event of a collision or grounding. The protocol also introduces crude oil washing as a requirement for new and existing tankers. This technique, accepted internationally mainly as a result of British initiative, involves using the crude oil cargo itself to remove the deposits from the cargo tanks. Both this technique and the provision of segregated ballast tanks greatly reduce the risk of operational pollution.
The Bill will thus enable us to be among the first countries to implement these important international conventions and there are compelling arguments for acting in these areas by international agreement. To do otherwise—to act unilaterally—would inevitably lead to different and often conflicting national standards. How could that be in the interests of our merchant fleet, or, indeed, those of any other merchant fleets? How could that make for greater maritime safety when we know that what masters and crews of ships need is a set of internationally


agreed and readily understandable rules? That is why we have always given and will continue to give our strong support to international agreements and in particular to IMCO which has made a distinguished contribution to the cause of marine safety and pollution over the past 20 years.
But complaints are made—we make them ourselves—that these conventions take too long to come into force. Of course, there are practical difficulties, but the complaints are not groundless. That is the fault not of IMCO, but of its member States. We must do what we can to add a sense of urgency to this and to set an example to others to ratify conventions promptly.
The target dates agreed at the 1MCO conference in February and the recent EEC initiative in recommending a time table for ratification of conventions are valuable steps which we fully support. But with the greater urgency now felt regarding these matters we feel that we cannot entirely depend upon others to do what we consider right with regard to vessels using our ports. It is for that reason that we intend to introduce an amendment which will give us the power to implement the requirements of international conventions on safety and pollution as soon as we have ratified them. In short, if the international entry into force of present or future agreements proves unacceptably protracted, we shall be able, if we think it appropriate in the particular circumstances, to bring these international agreements into effect in relation both to our own ships and in regard to the control of foreign ships which call at our ports. Clearly we should not do this without full consideration, but we believe it right to have the necessary power. That matter can he discussed more fully in Committee.
Pilotage contributes greatly to safety, but has not been the subject of legislation since 1913. Reform is needed. The provisions in the Bill—clauses 1 to 13—are the culmination of a lengthy period of review involving pilots, shipowners and others involved in pilotage. The Bill modernises pilotage legislation in a number of ways, but I should like to concentrate on two issues—the general organisation of pilotage and the requirements for compulsory pilotage.
Under the 1913 Act, pilotage administration is in the hands of about 40 local pilotage authorities, organised in a wide variety of ways. This local organisation of pilotage is a great strength, but we need to ensure that it is adaptable and responds rapidly to change.
The industry as a whole supports the concept of a pilotage commission which will be closely connected, through its members, with the pilotage service, and which will introduce an important element of self-regulation at a national level. The members of the commission will be appointed after consultation with all the interested parties and my intention is to seek a balanced membership drawn from all these interests, with, perhaps, one ortwo independents with expertise which will be useful to the commission.
The commission's primary responsibility will be to advise on the efficient and safe organisation of our pilotage service. Its job is not to run pilotage services or to replace existing authorities, but to deal with problems best considered nationally. The commission will not be a large body. Its strength wilt lie in its expertise. Although a launching loan will be needed, the commission will be self-financing through a levy on pilotage authorities. There is no need for the commission to be an expensive bureaucratic monster. Indeed, the Bill provides a number of controls to prevent that.
I turn to compulsory pilotage. The present position is quite illogical. The Bill tackles the problem in two ways. First, the commission will be under a duty to investigate whether pilotage should be made compulsory in districts where it is at present not compulsory. Secondly, the Bill provides for the eventual removal of all blanket exemptions for certain classes of vessels.

Sir Bernard Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, after all these years, the Government have still not grasped this nettle and the matter remains unresolved?

Mr. Smith: We had extensive consultations and what emerged as the best way of dealing with the problem is the solution that I am recommending to the House.
The question of pilotage certificates has been particularly carefully examined by the Advisory Committee on Pilotage and


its proposals, incorporated in the Bill, are aimed at safeguarding navigation and preventing disruption of the pilotage service arising from a too liberal use of certificates. I should add that it is essential that all parties should have confidence in the local pilotage authorities which are responsible for introducing the new system. Much progress has been made recently in improving the local organisation of pilotage and the commission will act as a further catalyst to change where necessary.
Finally, in this connection, may I say something about pilots' pensions? The pilots have been very concerned about the effect that current tax legislation will have on their pensions after April 1980. I am glad to say that Treasury Ministers have agreed that legislation will be included in the 1979 Finance Bill which will enable the present status of the pilots' national pension fund to continue. The Inland Revenue will be holding talks very shortly with the pilots' professional advisers on the form of the legislation which, while protecting pilots' present position, will allow a proper degree of flexibility for the future. This is a very welcome outcome to a problem which has, understandably, overshadowed the pilotage provisions of the Bill.
I should now like to turn to another main area in the Bill, which is equally of fundamental importance to the maintenance of safety on all our ships. That is discipline at sea and the related problem of drinking aboard fishing vessels—which are covered by clauses 23 to 25.
The law relating to disciplinary procedures on our merchant ships remained substantially unchanged from 1894 until 1970. The Merchant Shipping Act 1970 introduced a significantly more liberal regime but the master retained his traditional power to fine a seaman whom he considered to have committed a minor disciplinary offence. There was widespread discontent, particularly on the part of the seafarers' unions, with this system of shipboard fines even while the 1970 Bill was before Parliament. The Merchant Shipping Act 1974 went some way towards meeting those criticisms, but not far enough—as we recognised at the time. We therefore set up two working groups to examine in depth the disciplinary needs for seagoing employment in the Merchant Navy and in the fishing industry respectively.
These working groups included representatives of both employers and trade unions in the two industries, and at the end of 1975 they produced unanimous reports. This Bill will enable us to put into effect the changes they recommended and which require statutory backing.
The principal change which was recommended by the Merchant Navy working group was the abolition of the archaic and ineffective system of shipboard fines —to be replaced by a new system of discipline based on recorded warnings, reprimands and, in the worst cases, dismissal from the ship followed by action ashore in a two-tier system of joint disciplinary committees. These committees will have the power in extreme cases to exclude a persistent offender from employment in the industry, by recommending the withdrawal of his discharge book for an appropriate period.
This will represent a major step forward, bringing the conditions of those employed at sea in merchant ships much more in line with those currently enjoyed by workers on land. It will strengthen the effective sanctions against those who persistently ignore the need for discipline at sea, endangering the safety of our ships and seafarers, and it will be supported by a code of conduct which will set standards of behaviour to be observed on board ship by both officers and ratings.
Let me now turn to the recommendations of the fishing industry working group. Inquiry after inquiry has established that drunkenness aboard fishing vessels is a real danger. It has contributed to a number of major accidents—to say nothing of near misses. The working group, made up of those who knew the industry well, faced this problem and we propose to implement its recommendations.
It is to be made a new offence for fishermen and others to bring unauthorised liquor aboard a fishing vessel, or to be in possession of such liquor on board, or to permit another to bring unauthorised liquor aboard. There are to be statutory powers to search a fisherman suspected of bringing unauthorised drink on board a ship. We shall insist on reasonable safeguards against abuse of this provision. I want to make it clear that these searches will have to be carried out in a manner authorised by regulations


laid before the House for approval. Naturally there will be further consultations with the fishermen's organisations before the regulations are made, as I understand some of the apprehensions which have been voiced.

Mr. John Prescott: I am sure that, as a lawyer, my right hon. Friend understands the difficulty of trying to ban drink from vessels because of the threat to safety, with which I have some sympathy, but there is evidence of many trawler owners putting drunken men on board vessels because they could not get them there by any other means. As that will constitute a threat to seamen, is there a possibility of the owner being prosecuted?

Mr. Smith: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point. Any owner who behaves in that way is behaving reprehensively and putting at risk the lives of all the other people on the ship. If owners connive at such a practice, I am advised that the Bill covers the matter and that they can be comprehended under the offence which is in the Bill. No doubt that can be investigated more closely in Committee, but it is my understanding that for them to act in that way would be to connive at the offence struck at by the Bill.
When we are dealing with powers of search, the Committee will want to look at them very closely, as this matter involves the rights of the individual. I know—as did the working group—that it is not practical to try to stop fishermen from drinking at sea. The provisions take account of the practicalities of the problem. They do not in themselves make it a crime for fishermen to drink —that would be unreasonable as well as futile—but those in a position of responsibility, including the skipper and the owner, will now have the right in law to control the amount of liquor taken on board a fishing vessel, and it is up to them to exercise that control.
Many of the other recommendations of the fishing industry working group mirror those of the Merchant Navy working group, though with some minor differences. Disciplinary offences, for instance, will be handled by statutorily approved port disciplinary committees,

similar to the shore-based committees for the Merchant Navy. But the operations of the new system will be based on local industrial agreements rather than on a code of conduct approved by the Secretary of State.
These measures are not the last word in achieving acceptable conditions tor those who work at sea. The casual nature of employment, particularly in the fishing industry, creates a climate of uncertainty for those who earn their living at sea. Decasualisation is fundamental to bringing about conditions for our fishermen which are comparable to those enjoyed by the rest of us. My colleagues are investigating this difficult issue with both sides of the industry. But the provisions in the Bill represent an extremely important step in implementing an enlightened disciplinary regime much more in line with the developments elsewhere and firmly focused on the primary object of ensuring the safety of our ships and those on board.
At this point. I should like to relei briefly to our inquiries into casualties. We have in this country a long-established tradition of thoroughly investigating casualties by means of reports and inquiries and, where necessary, by an independent judicial formal investigation held in public. This system works well. and is respected throughout the world for its thoroughness and impartiality. But under present powers we cannot activate these inquiry procedures where serious personal injury occurs without loss of life. Nor can we investigate"near miss"incidents. Clause 33 will remedy these deficiencies.
The Bill also contains important measures to enhance the commercial position of our fleet, which represents an enormous national investment. Our industry, along with its competitors, is suffering from the effects of a worldwide shipping recession which started in 1973 and which currently shows little sign of improvement. So far the industry has weathered the storm pretty well compared with the experience of other maritime nations, but the undesirable foreign takeover is more than just a possibility: it is prudent, particularly at a time of recovery, to have the powers in clause 31 in reserve to protect this investment in Britain's future.
There is a further and most important reason for having these powers. Successive Governments have encouraged the development of a comprehensive United Kingdom offshore capability, not only to meet the demands of operators in the North Sea—a market now worth well over £1 billion per annum—but to compete for a share of the world-wide market in offshore supplies. The development of such a capability, particularly in the shipborne operations within the offshore service sector, is still at an early stage, and with competition as fierce as it is these sectors remain vulnerable to takeover.
It would be nothing less than a tragedy if the potential benefits stemming from British technological inventiveness to meet the demands of the hostile North Sea environment were eroded by selective takeovers by foreign companies. Such things have happened in the past and we should ensure that they do not happen in this potential growth area of the economy. The powers we seek extend to such undertakings. I emphasise that this does not represent any change in our policy of encouraging inward investment which is in the national interest.
The Bill also amends the provisions in part III of the Merchant Shipping Act 1974 so as to clarify and improve the Government's defensive powers against certain types of foreign shipping activity.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to another commercial matter with which the Bill deals—the liability of shipowners. This, too, is largely regulated by international agreements. Clauses 14 to 19 will enable us to ratify two important international conventions in this field—the Athens convention, which deals with liability of carriers in respect of passengers and their luggage, and the London convention, which establishes overall limits to a shipowner's liability in respect of claims arising from maritime incidents.
The Bill also contains—in clause 36—measures to remove the right of shipowners to limit their liability for the death or injury of crew members, a long overdue reform which, I know, will be welcome to seafarers.
Nor have we forgotten the deserted wives, the ex-wives or the children. The Bill also contains provisions, in clause 40,

to make the earnings of merchant seamen attachable in respect of maintenance orders. This will equate the position of seamen and those who work on shore. We are putting forward measures to end the present exemption of the wages of Scottish fishermen, bringing them into line with fishermen in England and Wales.
But what about the culprits who transgress safety legislation? Our courts already have power to impose a fine of up to £50,000 on summary conviction for illegal discharges of oil around our coasts or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. But many of the penalties for offences against safety measures are out of date and derisory. It has become increasingly evident in recent months that we must take the strongest possible action to redress this situation, where many serious offences endangering the lives of seafarers and threatening our seas and coasts with devastating pollution can go virtually unpunished.
Accordingly, we propose to introduce by amendment a comprehensive revision of virtually all the penalties for contraventions of our laws dealing with safety at sea. For the most serious safety offences applying to both British and foreign ships, we intend to introduce a maximum fine of £50,000 on summary conviction, or an unlimited fine on indictment. This ability to impose high fines on summary conviction is particularly important when dealing with foreign ships, when it is often impractical to proceed by way of indictment.
We also propose to inflation-proof the new levels of penalty. But for wider reasons I hope that we shall not have to use those powers too often.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman be saying anything about the laws that the French have introduced? I understand that the French have introduced a minimum fine rather than a maximum. Is not that a good idea?

Mr. Smith: I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to that matter, perhaps at the hon. Gentleman's insistence, during the debate on oil spillage earlier this week. It is very difficult to transplant techniques from one judicial system to another. I have a limited knowledge of the French legal and


judicial system, but I believe that its whole approach to prosecution of crime is quite different from ours. We must be very careful in borrowing from the French. So far as I know, the concept of a minimum fine is not often found within our jurisprudence, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter we can deal with it in Committee.
I am certain that in principle the House will welcome our measures, which will give us real sanctions against those who disregard safety at sea.
In conclusion, I would like to underline the principal objectives behind these proposed measures. First and foremost, they are designed to improve the safety of our ships and seafearers. They will allow us to bring ourselves up to date with international developments, to ratify a substantial number of important international agreements on safety and pollution and to continue in future to respond quickly to further international progress without the need for fresh primary legislation. I have spoken of the leading role that we play in international organisations. It is imperative that we maintain this position. I believe that the Bill will greatly strengthen our ability to do so.
We also aim to make the conditions of employment of those who work at sea comparable—as far as is practical and compatible with safety to the conditions of employment of those who work on land.
The revision of our pilotage arrangements, in conjunction with the other safety measures in the Bill, will, I believe make an important contribution to improving the safety of navigation in the congested waters around our coasts.
The Bill deals with a wide variety of topics, but there are other areas still in need of reform. For example, our legislation on registration and on wreck and salvage is in need of revision. But we cannot do everything at once. The Bill is long enough as it stands. Indeed, this speech has been long enough as it stands, so I bring it to a conclusion by commending the Bill to the House.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: Although our debate has been delayed by the discussion on the emergency motion, and I shall therefore curtail many of the remarks I

had intended to make in a desire to keep the debate reasonably short, it is a privilege for me to open on behalf of the official Opposition on a Bill that concerns itself with one of our greatest and most successful industries.
We are an island nation. We are a maritime people, and in spite of our attachment to—some hon. Members might say"our entanglement with "—the EEC, I am sure that we shall remain a maritime nation for generations to come.
We have today a merchant fleet of great variety. It is comparatively young, expertly managed and well manned. I believe that it stands ready to take advantage of the upturn in world activity when the current over-capacity of world tonnage begins to recede.
Although employers and unions often differ strongly in their views on major issues, I think that it is also true to say that there is a well-established tradition of co-operation between unions and employers in the industry. Indeed, there has been only one official strike since the war. On the whole, union-management relations are good.
The British merchant fleet is still the fourth largest in the world. In certain respects—for instance, in refrigerated cargo vessels—we have the largest fleet in the world. I believe that we have a safety record three times better than the world average. Our merchant ships carry double the amount of trade that the country generates for itself.
Therefore, in our consideration of the industry it is most important that all the time we pay attention to the future of the cross trades. We must do our best to safeguard their interests. In 1977, United Kingdom-owned ships made a net contribution of more than £1,000 million to the balance of payments current account. That is an important achievement.
The Conservative Party welcomes the Bill. We shall use our best endeavours to ensure that it reaches the statute book without undue delay. Should a General Election intervene during the Bill's passage through the House—for the sake of the Bill we do not hope that it will, but in every other particular we very much hope for it—I repeat the assurance that I gave to the National Union of Seamen in August that we would wish to find an


early place for it in our legislative programme.
We have waited four years for the Government to bring the Bill forward to Second Reading. I hope that our commitment will be sufficient to remove the misrepresentation of our intentions that occurred earlier this year.

Mr. Prescott: That was because of a speech by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nott: No; it was a casual remark which was misunderstood by a reporter. There was nothing in my speech on this subject.
As we are in broad agreement with most aspects of the Bill—although we shall want to move amendments in Committee, and I think that we are likely to oppose clause 31—it would be appropriate to spend a little more time now talking about merchant shipping generally. The Secretary of State dealt with the particular clauses in some detail. I think that this is an appropriate occasion to enlarge slightly on the industry's future.
The Opposition want to play a vigorous role in securing a better balance between demand and supply in world shipping. Until supply and demand come into better balance, there will not be prosperity for the industry or the kind of employment prospects that we should all like to see.
It is not enough merely to make that statement. This desire imposes a responsibility on Governments to give political and moral support to the rationalisation of our own shipbuilding capacity. That is now proposed by the board of British Shipbuilders. I welcome its recent announcement in that regard. There is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for our shipping industry if this country becomes a world leader in a reckless credit race that simply adds more excess tonnage to an already heavily overburdened world market.
With 100,000 people employed in the shipping industry, we do not want to see unemployment transferred from our shipyards to our seamen. A slimmer and more viable shipbuilding industry will emerge. Whatever our political views, we must all play our part in easing the transitional and social problems that will arise in the shipyards in the next few years.
I prefer the course of substantial redundancy payments in the yards, retraining and other industrial programmes to building ships on flagrantly uneconomic terms for our competitors.
This is not a controversial debate and I have no intention of covering again the ground that we went over on the Polish ships issue. That contract exists and the shipyards must now do their best to satisfy our customers. But I wish to sound a warning about including new ships in the aid programme. Free or heavily subsidised gifts of tonnage to Pakistan, India and other developing countries will undermine our ability to withstand intense foreign competition. There are other forms of foreign aid which can generate employment in our factories. In the end it will not do much more than provide a short-term palliative to the existing distressing situation in the shipyards.
World shipbuilding capacity is probably double what is required in the long term. It is hard to see how more than a fraction of the world's yards will be employed in the next few years. We must tackle the severe position in the yards in a constructive, humane and far-sighted manner.
We shall continue to press for firmer action by the European Economic Community against the Soviet Union's maritime threat. This subject was raised at Question Time two or three days ago. The Soviet merchant fleet now amounts to more than 10 million deadweight tons compared with our 7 million deadweight tons. It is three to four times the tonnage necessary to carry the Soviet Union's direct cargo trade. It substantially undercuts freight rates. We must pursue a positive line, and I believe that the Government are attempting to do that.
If Mr. Brezhnev feels free to offer us gratuitous advice about the sale of Harriers to China, we can remind him of the privileged position of the Soviet Union under the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement. Two can play the game of commercial retaliation if it has to be that way. I hope that it does not.
In the meantime, the decision of the EEC States a few days ago is an inadequate but at least a first step towards more concerted European action in this sphere. It is an important area for the future of our shipping industry.
During the debate on oil pollution earlier in the week, I outlined our positive and constructive attitude towards the work of IMCO. I do not wish to go into that again because I covered much of the ground on Monday. But if we can achieve positive progress in the ratification of international conventions on training, substandard ships, navigation equipment and so forth—and I am delighted that many of those matters are included in the Bill—that must be the best means of proceeding. The unilateral approach of the French to oil pollution, whatever merits it may have, cannot be said to be in our shipping interests because of our huge investment in the cross trades and the world oil tanker business.
I welcome the amendments which the Government propose to move to increase the penalties for the breach of safety regulations at sea. We shall examine them, but in principle we welcome them. They are in the right direction.
We shall give every possible support to IMCO, but there are grounds for increasing activity on a regional basis, particularly within the EEC. The principles of the Hague memorandum under which a group of port States agree to implement conventions and apply them in their own ports to ships of all flags, whether or not they are party to the convention, is a good way of speeding progress. In this area we shall examine the Government's amendments. We shall probably seek to move the penalties up, not down. In the meantime, we shall wait to see what the Government propose.
In the past justified criticism has been made of the protectionist shipping policies of the United States. I was pleased to see a report of the meeting between the United States and our consultative shipping group in London earlier this month. The current United States policy review seems to be constructive and helpful. There is a perceptible change of mood in our shipping relations with that country. We must see what comes out of that review.
The more important problem comes from the world-wide growth of protectionism, not only in trade—and I hope that that trend will be checked by a successful end to the Tokyo round—but in the form of subsidised merchant fleets.

These have been growing all over the world. There is a legitimate aspiration on the part of developing countries to have their own shipping lines. But that does not require us to support the type of principles that are embodied in the United Nations liner code against the interests of our own industry.
The skills which our masters, officers and crew possess are exercisable when they are working for the flag carriers of any nation. Our skilled merchant seamen possess international skills. In the last resort they will be able to demand international rewards. They can move from one flag to another. The depression in world shipping has, for a time, limited job opportunities with British shipping companies. But this is an example of an industry which illustrates why British tax rates must not be allowed to get hopelessly out of line with our competitors. Concessions in the Finance Act 1977 helped our seamen who are serving overseas. But the overriding need is to bring British taxation rates more in line with those of our competitors so that the Merchant Navy offers not only an attractive career but one which is rewarding.
I intended to discuss in detail, as the Secretary of State did, some of the main provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman described the provisions clearly and due to the lateness of the hour I shall now refer to them only briefly. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
We welcome the new disciplinary provisions. We wish to examine them in detail in Committee, but the broad principles and the establishment of a new code of conduct for merchant shipping vessels and the fishing industry is sensible and overdue. It is right to replace the quasi-military system of discipline which dates back to the nineteenth century with a clear system of conduct in seafarers' contracts. But it is also important that effective sanctions to control offenders should be maintained.
In the debate on Monday I dealt with the question of certification of deck and engineer officers. I shall not repeat what I said on that subject.
We shall require the Committee to examine critically the limitations on liability contained in the Bill. It is not


our wish to see a proliferation of one-ship companies as a means of avoiding major claims. That would be undesirable. But, with an ever-increasing volume of hazardous cargoes moving into our ports and around our coasts, it is necessary to inquire into the real capacity of world insurance markets. We want to know what the insurance markets can absorb. It is not the function of Parliament to place an artificially low figure on compensation for insurable risks. I emphasise the words"insurable risks ". I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) will wish to examine that matter in Committee.
I should like to raise a personal matter. A colleague of mine has drawn attention to the sad death of his father in a fatal accident on a British flag vessel when it was in port in the United States. Many organisations could have conducted an inquiry but none did. I understand that the Bill provides for a new standard inquiry procedure for accidents of this kind. I am pleased about that. However, I am not clear whether that procedure will apply to accidents which fall short of death on board—I am talking of passengers rather than crew.
Does the Unfair Contract Terms Act cover ticket conditions restricting negligence claims by passengers against British ship owners? Are the ticket conditions disallowed under the Unfair Contract Terms Act? Under the small print, can a shipowner exclude himself from negligence when claims are made by passengers?
There is another aspect concerning accidents. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, as the Secretary of State said, provides substantial protection for employees. There is no longer to be a limit on the amount that they can claim. That is in sharp contrast to the position for passengers, and in Committee we should like to look into that.
The British Fishing Federation has made one point that I should like to mention. On a small fishing vessel it is most important that the skipper or a senior member of the crew should be appointed to look after matters covered by the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. It would be intolerable if a junior crew member, purely because of his trade union affiliation, were to dictate the

manner, for instance, in which fishing gear should be used. We therefore want to be sure that the provisions of the Act, with which, in broad principle, we agree, will not lead to friction between the skipper of a small fishing vessel and whoever is authorised to oversee the provisions of the Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral will have more to say about pilot-age, but we are glad that the recommendations of the advisory committee now seem to meet with general approval. We are also glad that the pensions matter is settled. I have seen representatives of the pilotage authorities and of the unions—does my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) wish to intervene?

Sir Bernard Braine: I feel that my hon. Friend's enthusiasm about the pilotage provisions is beginning to run away with him. I am simply urging him to be more cautious for reasons which later will become clear.

Mr. Nott: I have studied with some care a whole host of submissions on pilotage—deep sea pilotage, mandatory pilotage in our ports, which I believe concerns my hon. Friend, and whether pilotage should be permissive, and so on. Contrary to what the Secretary of State said, there is still a permissive element about pilotage in the Bill. I have followed all these matters, but I do not intend to go into them now because I want to leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral to deal with them in greater detail and with greater skill than I could.
I have seen the unions, the association representing the pilots and others. We shall be tabling amendments on pilotage in Committee, but on the whole I think that they will be changes of detail rather than major changes of principle.

Mr. Prescott: I am pleased that the hon. Member supports the pilotage commission. I shall have criticisms to make of it, but in its establishment it is presumably a quango. Are the Opposition supporting the use of a quango on this occasion?

Mr. Nott: We shall wish to table probing amendments in Committee about the powers of the pilotage commission. On the whole, however, if the commission is a quango it is the best kind of quango.


With most of the quangos that the Government establish, Ministers put their friends upon the boards, and the taxpayer has to pay the fees. The proposals for the pilotage commission, however, provide that the industry will finance it. That is different from the kind of Socialist quango that we normally criticise.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: My hon. Friend said that the industry will finance the commission. Ultimately, however, it will pass the cost on to the consumer. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.

Mr. Nott: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall.
I have followed the argument about the pilotage commission. Last week I met Trinity House, which is concerned about this matter. After the report of the first consultative group, Trinity House was particularly concerned about certain aspects. We shall want to table amendments in Committee. The problem is that there are 40 pilotage authorities in the country, and, whereas I would prefer not to set up new bodies, in this case we face a particular problem.
I want now to move on to the most contentious part of the Bill, clause 31. I regret that the Government have sought to include it. The Bill generally is uncontroversial, but this is a controversial item. I remember the views of the industry in the case of Furness Withy, and the approaches that it made to the Government. This clause, however, gives the widest of powers to the Secretary of State. They would allow him, without reference to the industry, to stop the sale, not just of shipping companies, but of individual ships to foreign purchasers. Under the clause as drafted he could prevent the transfer of one share from one foreign resident to another. The Bill is very widely drawn, and I am not sure that that is right.
The Secretary of State gave the example of what has happened in the North Sea, but how far would we have got in the North Sea without the massive investment that has come in from overseas? Inward investment into the shipping business is nothing new. Esso, Mobil and Shipping Industrial Holdings are all significant owners in our industry, and they play a vital part in it. Foreign investment may

often be the only means of preventing the liquidation of a British company, with a consequent loss of jobs.
I do not like clause 31 as it stands. We shall probe it is Committee, but as I see it we are likely to oppose it.
In broad terms we welcome the Bill, with the qualifications that I have outlined. Our shipping industry faces difficult times, but I have faith in its resilience and flexibility to enable it to win through the present over-capacity in world markets, and prosper in the future, as it has always done in the past.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I warmly welcome the Bill for a number of personal reasons which I shall explain. I wish to congratulate and welcome my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State to what is presumably his first Bill.

Mr. Eric Ogden: His second.

Mr. Prescott: Then I welcome him to his first major Bill.
The Bill is a major measure of reform for seafarers, and I am pleased that the Government are honouring a commitment made many years ago. This is the third Merchant Shipping Bill which seeks to correct the many injustices complained of by seafarers in the 1966 strike. I was one of the active components of that strike, but, fortunately, did not get the accolade of being one of the politically motivated men. Perhaps that was because I had just fought as a Labour candidate in the election at Southport.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Bill. I am sure that we shall receive his attention on the matters we raise. This legislation is part of a continuing process. The industry is in a constant state of change, and we therefore constantly adjust our attitudes and our demands in respect of it.
I welcome, too, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade who represents in this House the well-known sea port of Hackney. I worked with him as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and I was deeply impressed by the wa, in which he listened to the problems of the seafaring industry. It is a highly complex industry, and is considerably different from shore-based industry. It takes a


great deal of experience and patience to understand the problems involved.
We owe the Government a great deal, not only for preparing the Bill but for the current political circumstances. Seafarers thought that the Bill would be precluded by a General Election. In that respect, I welcome the response by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who stated that if there was an election and his party won they would attach to it the degree of importance that he mentioned.
The grievances that we backed in the 1966 strike—and I shall not rehearse them all—were recognised in the Pearson inquiry and related to the quasi-military aspect of the industrialisation of merchant shipping. That attitude was very much resented. It was governed by legislation introduced in 1894. What we felt to be particularly offensive—and in my 10 years at sea I had personal experience of these matters—was the use of discipline of a kind that would not be acceptable in any other industry. We believe that one should appeal to a man's sense of self-discipline rather than rely on the imposition of fines, heavy sentences and the use of the captain's penal powers on board a vessel.
The Labour Government set out to reform the position in order to give seafarers the opportunity to carry out their work against a background of sensible legislation. This is the third instalment of legislation that began in 1970. The second instalment came in 1974, and this Bill is the third instalment. These provisions provide a number of major reforms called for by the Pearson inquiry and other independent bodies.
The recommendations embodied in these provisions include a number which I myself made when a member of a Department of Trade disciplinary committee in 1970. However, it has taken almost 10 years to convince the Department that these matters should be embodied in legislation. We felt that there should be statutory provisions governing safety matters rather than to have a system involving voluntary codes and maritime notices. This Bill takes us a major way along the path to guaranteeing statutory controls in the matter of safety. This will give a great deal of help to workers under legislation relating to health and safety.
I have a number of criticisms to make of the Bill but, in the main, the Bill reflects a package deal. Part of the trouble with our industry is that these matters always appear to reflect a package deal. We have to trade off these provisions in ways that other industries do not have to adopt. Indeed, this Bill encompasses a number of package deals. The provisions in regard to pilotage are very much a package deal. It is interesting to note that the provisions depart to a considerable extent from the proposals issued by the ACOPS committee—the pilots committee—that was set up to consider this subject. We are trying to correct the mess that was created for seafarers in 1970. I refer particularly to the penal clauses. Therefore, in that respect alone I welcome the Bill.
I wish to say a few words about the subject of pilotage. I shall not go into great detail on that subject because no doubt others will have an opportunity to deal with that subject in Committee. I wish to warn the Labour Whips that I shall not be available personally because no doubt I shall be in Europe attending to other duties, many of them dealing with shipping.
One of the early reports on this topic went a long way towards establishing a pilotage commission with some authority. I wish to emphasise that there are far too many organisations dealing with pilotage; and I believe that Trinity House has far too much power. It is rare that the Department ever questions the universal recommendations of its committees in package deals. Certainly that is the position in regard to fishing disciplinary committee's report, which is the reason for the penal clauses, even though the unions are against those provisions. However a different situation applies in respect of pilotage in that it departed from that package deal. How does Trinity House possess such powers?
I am told that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) is a member of Trinity House. That may be a good indication of the kind of influence that such a body can exert. If one can depart in principle in respect of one package deal, why cannot a similar principle be departed from in another package deal? Perhaps in one case it involves officers and gentlemen and in the other case mere fishermen. If that is the case,


one must excuse those fishermen for drawing conclusions. That is one of the difficulties in this type of exercise if one seeks to keep to a package deal but departs from it to suit a particular purpose. We hope that in the coming years we shall be able to correct some of the earlier mistakes caused by the penalties imposed for unauthorised drinking on board vessels.
I believe that these matters of pilotage should have been dealt with by radical changes in the whole organisation of shipping and seafaring by the establishment of a maritime authority. I made that case when I was a PPS, but I believe that it was defeated by the Civil Service, which still opposes such a suggestion. However, it can be said that in a piecemeal way the Civil Service is gradually moving towards some form of maritime authority.
The European Community is moving towards a similar kind of organisation on the lines of a maritime authority. There is a regional argument to be considered relating to questions of pollution, safety matters and many other areas of activity. Much of the organisational matters in this area could benefit from the work of a maritime authority.
I hope that the Minister will consider the use of a provision to make mandatory the compulsory use of pilots. I have in mind the"Amoco Cadiz"incident as well as the more recent example involving the"Christos Bitas ". The difficulty is that not all countries observe international standards and that many do not ratify them. It often takes five to 10 years to ratify or implement these provisions. This also will be true of the work carried out by SOLAS and IMCO. There is an argument, as has been recognised in the EEC, for extending the port State power to deal with vessels which continually flout minimum international standards.
Therefore, the idea of compulsory pilotage on vessels, particularly loaded tankers, is a possibility. I hope that this suggestion will be considered. If the problem of intervention on the high seas arises, we shall have to ensure that such vessels will not be allowed into ports if they are unaccompanied by pilots. That will be a powerful sanction, and I hope that that suggestion will be seriously

considered as a possible amendment to the Bill.
I said earlier that this Bill was a charter for seamen. This attitude is summed up in Command Paper 7217, which states:
Seafarers have an arduous and exacting life at sea and should benefit from conditions of employment, safety and health comparable, as far as possible, with those which apply on land.
The Bill and the other provisions introduced by the Government comprise a major step forward in achieving standards for seafarers. I very much welcome this charter.
Let me take some examples of the effects of the provisions. It has been argued that we should move away from the voluntary system of maritime notice in safety matters to statutory control. That will be a major step forward which I very much welcome. I also welcome the extra powers given to inspectors in relation to enforcement. This is a great step forward in terms of safety on board vessels.
Mention has been made of an increase in the scope of various inquiries. This is aimed at giving more opportunities to the Department to be able to investigate matters, not only in cases in which there have been fatalities, but other cases involving the safety of those on board. I remember one case involving a fishing skipper from my own area who defied an Icelandic gunboat by telling his crew to go aft while the gunboat fired on the vessel. That was clearly a threat to the seafarers on board. Whatever one may feel about the pirate action of the skipper at that time, I must tell the House that we took no action under Merchant Shiping Acts against that skipper. I hope that the new provisions will give us a chance to move to deal with the delays involved in inquiries which may prevent the taking of prosecutions. Bearing in mind what happened with"Globtic Venus ", we might also take certain action.
We welcome the extension of safety controls to the offshore area. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind the circumstances of the recent diving accident in the North Sea. A new principle was involved in this incident. It was believed that a vessel could operate safely with dynamic positioning, without using anchors. A computer controlled the engines, allowing the divers to go to


work in 26 ft. seas and force 8 gales. That was stupidity of the first order. This accident was avoidable. The vessel ought not to have been operating in such conditions. There is an undoubted threat to seafarers if they are led to believe that they may safely work in close proximity to oil rigs and production vessels in such weather. I hope that the Department will look carefully at all the new developments, which may be increasingly dangerous.
I come now to the increase in the compensation limits. This is in a large measure due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend, who discovered the limit on the liability of compensation payable to seafarers. This alteration proposed in the Bill is very much due to his intervention. The move did not come from the union, which was not aware of the position. I, too, was unaware of this condition. I congratulate the Minister on giving us the opportunity to make amends, so that when injury occurs the seafarer can receive compensation comparable with that paid to industrial shore workers.
There is one feature in the Bill relating to the seaman who deserts his wife and children and who can duck his responsibilities to pay maintenance. This arises because of the inability to make an attachment of earnings order. I am glad that this is being dealt with, although I am not sure that some members of my union would feel the same way. Seamen must face up to this responsibility in the same way as shore workers. If it is argued that the seafarer should have comparable conditions, he must accept comparable responsibilities.
The major area of the Bill concerns discipline. I have always been against disciplinary procedures at sea. Having had personal experience of them, I have long been bitterly opposed to the concept of imposing respect by discipline. It is not possible. This idea has led to some major industrial incidents, most of them unofficial and as much against the union as against the owners, certainly in the 1960s.
I have always supported one principle: if any action constituted a threat to the vessel or to another person's life, that action should merit a penalty of the highest order. There are special circumstances on board vessels. We do not

oppose the idea of increasing the penalties for any action constituting a threat to the safety of the vessel or other men. The idea that discipline is the best form of safety was extended in the industry to all sorts of incidents. The result was that even the nightwatchman on a passenger ship, who was supposed to be listening to the bell but who fell asleep, was fined as much as £10 with the loss of a day's pay. He had nothing to do with the safety of the ship. Such a penalty is not justifiable.
To recall a saltier tale, I can remember that on a number of occasions, on passenger ships, if a steward or any seaman was caught with a female passenger he was charged with"broaching the ship's cargo ". It is a rather unfortunate phrase. but the charge led to a fine of £10 or £15 and expulsion from the industry or the ship involved. I believe that that was an excessive judgment made by those who had been given draconian powers.
Once we have enacted this measure and got rid of the system whereby the captain imposes fines, the seafarer will have the right to go before a tribunal or have his case dealt with by the industry. I shall be sending the Minister details of a case in which an anomaly has become apparent. Because the phrase"Great Britain"does not include Northern Ireland while the phrase"United Kingdom"does, Northern Irish seamen sailing on British vessels do not have the right to go before an unfair dismissals tribunal. That anomaly must be corrected.
I welcome the commitment given by the Government to repeal certain disciplinary matters. The advances which have taken place in the industry in the past have been very much due to the actions of a Labour Government. This is very much to their credit. The results of their actions have made me feel that perhaps I should return to sea. I do not know whether the owners would lift the blacking sanction against me—although it is quite different from the opposition to the sanctions imposed upon Ford.
I have emphasised the seafarer and the shipping industry. However, coming from a fishing port, I believe that what has been done for seafarers must be done for those earning a living in the fishing industry. All too often the union


is against changes in the law. Certainly the fishermen of Grimsby are. The Secretary of State has made clear that decasualisation is an important cause of the problems in this industry. The effect of drink and the conditions in which the men have to work are important considerations, too. I welcome the action that will be taken against those who encourage drunken fishermen to board vessels or to fly to Scotland to join a vessel. Such people should be open to prosecution.
I am pleased that the Department has acknowledged that fires on board trawlers are greater in number than they ought to be. The figures given by the Minister show that the incidence of fires on trawlers is twice as high as it was a decade ago, far higher than it is on other types of vessels. That is unsatisfactory. I am sure that this contributes to the fact that the average number of deaths of fishermen between 1961 and 1963 and 1964 and 1976 showed such a remarkable increase. The figure rose from being four times higher than in the coal mining industry to being 10 times higher. From being 10 times higher than the figures for manufacturing industry it rose to being 50 times higher. That position cannot be tolerated, and I am glad that the Minister is giving his early attention to it.
I am pleased that the Opposition welcome the Bill. They have said that they oppose clause 31. I hope that they will reflect upon that. The industry has asked for the power contained in clause 31. I can well understand why the Opposition want to back out of the deal. Perhaps some sort of a package deal was involved. We shall have to see what happens in Committee.
There is a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part of the owners, but that is not new. They argue that the Russians are a threat, because of their unfair competition. Yet the owners controlled matters through the liner conferences for many years. Why should the argument of unfair shipbuilding competition be so different when the owners seek to build their ships in Japanese yards? Why should taxpayers have to top up the difference between the cost of building in a European yard and a Japanese yard? Presumably the cost would be even higher in the Korean yards. This is a

crazy way of operating. If we are expected to give the shipping industry some protection, should we not say that the industry ought to place its orders nearer home?
There was an article today in The Times about flags of convenience, pointing out that a lot of tonnage was leaving European flags to sail under flags of convenience. I believe that all the powers sought to be operated against the Russians should be used against the flags of convenience, even if this affects British owners who are seeking to obtain tax advantages and avoid regulations.
I was alarmed this morning when read in The Guardian that the Isle of Man is to have the opportunity to become a flag of convenience. It is said that the intention is not to reduce standards but to give tax advantages. Presumably, if seamen sail under the Isle of Man flag they may look forward to being birched for some offences. As I understand it, that is the law in the Isle of Man. That goes very much against the type of legislation that we are now discussing.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have so far resisted the blandishments of Bermuda, Hong Kong and other countries to give special tax advantages, will be mindful of the actions. of the Isle of Man. If there is any loophole, that will be to the advantage of the shipowner.
In the main, I cannot envisage shipowners looking to the Isle of Man for tax advantages. Most of them have not paid income tax for goodness knows how many years. If the Isle of Man offers. tax advantages, that will make little difference to the majority of owners. That probably explains why they have not gone to many of the areas of tax advantage.
I welcome the Bill. It is a major advance. There has been a long uphill struggle to change the present laws. There have been many struggles. I am glad that at last Parliament has turned its car to the need to reform and to give to seafarers the rights that are enjoyed by workers ashore. It is a major social advance for British seafarers. I am glad' that it should come in legislation sponsored by the Labour Government in, accord with a commitment given many years ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The House will wish to known that there are 14 hon. Members who wish to catch my eye, probably within the next three hours.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his Bill and on his lucid exposition of it. I cannot speak with the expertise and personal knowledge of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who served in the Merchant Navy. I served for some years in the Royal Navy. I think the hon. Gentleman would claim that to be rather different.
I represent fishing communities. I represent a constituency that has always made a considerable contribution to the number of men serving in the Merchant Navy. Even now there are men from my constituency in almost every shipping line in the United Kingdom as well as in some foreign lines. They are serving at all ranks. In the heyday of transatlantic liner travel we produced a commodore for the Cunard Line. There was pride in my constituency that one of my constituents, who is now dead, was the sculptor's model for the Merchant Navy memorial. For many years he was the bosun with the New Zealand Shipping Company. I speak with a great constituency interest in welcoming the Bill.
It is unfortunate that pilotage has not been covered by a separate Bill. A separate Bill would have been justified. The Government should take some cognisance of the representations from the Scottish Guild of Pilots that there should be a Scottish pilotage committee. That is more than a nationalist argument. The view has been expressed that, in time, appointees to the commission, whatever the original composition, will come from Trinity House because they will be near the Department and convenient. There is strength in that argument.
Clause 1(2) provides that licensed pilots will be appointed to the commission. A specific number should be laid down in the Bill. It has been submitted that five pilots would be reasonable in a committee of 12. I agree with that. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he hoped the committee would have a balanced membership. A number should be written into the Bill.
As for the levies to be imposed by the commission, there is a good case for a certain proportion of the money to come from Government funds. That would give the Department a responsibility and an interest at all stages.
I agree with the submission of the Scottish Guild of Pilots that pilotage certificates should be confined to bona fide masters. There must be no question of doing otherwise. It would be intolerable for a ship's captain to hand over control of navigation of his vessel to someone less well qualified than himself.
It would be a retrograde step to remove under clause 8(5) the exemption from compulsory pilotage of harbour vessels such as tugs, dredgers and barges. The skippers of such vessels know their harbours as well as the palms of their hands. Their record of safety and avoidance of collisions is pretty high. It would be unfortunate if they were obliged to become involved in pilotage.
I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear—this issue does not arise in the Bill but I think it appeared in a White Paper—whether EEC nationals may qualify for certificates, and possibly without reciprocation. What about ships sailing under flags of convenience? I shall be glad to receive some assurance from the Government Front Bench.
Discipline is dealt with in clause 23 (1)(d). It is a sound provision and I do not object to it. However, the master should he obliged to inform seamen of the appeals procedure. There have been one or two instances where time has elapsed before the seamen concerned have been aware of their rights. It would be a useful measure for the captain to be obliged in a case of dispute or removal of the pay book, to inform the crew member of his rights. Records and documentation should be kept as simple as possible. Most ships captains already have enough paper work.
Clauses 21 and 22 deal with safety. In common with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, I can say that one of my constituents lost his life as a result of an accident aboard ship. I do not need to detail the case now, because it has been settled. However, my constituent lost his life through faulty stays on the crosstrees of a mast. His brother, a master mariner, informed me that the


defect was of such a nature that it would never have been allowed in similar circumstances ashore by the factory inspectorate. Therefore, I welcome the Bill's protection of our seamen.
Clause 25 deals with unauthorised liquor. The provisions are essential. Anyone who knows about these matters could not argue with the clause. The unfortunate reduction in the number of long distance vessels means that liquor may not be such a problem as it was some time ago. Most fishermen are now fishing within a day or two of port and that has altered their drinking patterns.
I query the fine of £1,000 or imprisonment of two years Those penalties seem unduly harsh and I hope that we shall hear some justification for them.
Clause 27 relates to the powers of Department of Trade inspectors. Vessels are bringing oil to our shores but at Sullom Voe, for example, ships are now coming in to take oil away from that part of the Shetlands. They are travelling around the coast. There should be inspection of those tankers to ensure that they are fit for the sea and that their masters have the necessary qualifications. Although they could be vessels of their own nationality dealing with their own oil, the most stringent inspection should take place there as well.
This is a very useful and essential measure. I hope that some of my points will be dealt with or aired and amendments made in Committee. I welcome the Bill on behalf of my party.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) referred to his service in the Royal Navy. Mine was with the merchant service, firstly, with Glen Line, the MV"Glenorchy"out of Glasgow. She was lost on the August 1942 Malta convoy. Even after all those years my mother still says"Eric, you have never been the same since you went to sea with those Scotsmen ". It is probably true.
This is the first occasion on which I have followed the right hon. Gentleman in a debate on the Merchant Navy. I was glad that his remarks were entirely within the context of the British shipping

industry, and entirely within the context of the United Kingdom. I hope that I do not embarrass him by saying how grateful I was to hear him talking about the British merchant service and not necessarily the Scottish merchant service, although I began with a Scottish ship and a Scottish crew.
I turn briefly—because this is a friendly occasion—to the two Front Benches, which earlier were both composed of the old and the new. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State represents the old and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State represents the new. I say publicly to my right hon. Friend what I said to him privately when he was translated to his new duties —that at least some good has come out of devolution.
On the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was in good form again tonight. Yet I kept hearing him say"This is a point which will be taken up in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral." I have the impression that whatever duties are to be done in Committee they were being passed on to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). I recall the hon. Member for Wirral spoke for more than two and a half hours on a Bill dealing with the Mersey ferries, let alone the shipping industry, and my fear is that speeches of that length may be repeated in Committee. Nevertheless, he is a very competent Member, from Merseyside. I welcome him and wish him well, across the water and across the Floor of the House.
This is a Bill which deserves an unopposed Second Reading today. But it is one which, as other hon. Members have already said, requires, and ought to have, detailed consideration in Committee and on Report. Merchant shipping Bills come but rarely before us. It is eight years since the last major one, the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. The Merchant Shipping Act 1970 was a merchant shipping Bill to which a few miscellaneous provisions had been added. A few miscellaneous provisions have since been added to it. The Bill now before the House appears to me to be a pilotage Bill to which some miscellaneous provisions about the merchant service and other matters have been added. The long title of the Bill makes this quite clear.
While most of the changes proposed by the Bill are amendments to earlier Merchant Shipping Acts or Pilotage Acts, there are other amendments to other previous pieces of legislation, including the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919, the Hovercraft Act 1968, and others.
Within the terms of the long title, therefore, Ministers ought not to be too surprised if, either in Committee or on Report, other amendments come forward, not necessarily from the Opposition Benches but also from the Labour Benches, to certain parts of this generally agreed Bill.
The Bill has been long in preparation and most of the clauses, if not all, are in the form that they are tonight after a very great deal of comment, discussion, argument and consultation between interested parties outside the House. Almost inevitably, Parliament as Parliament is almost the last body to be involved.
The provisions of clauses 1 to 13, the pilotage clauses, have been discussed and eventually agreed in this form by Trinity House and the other 39 or 40 pilotage authorities to which reference has already been made in the debate. Trinity House certainly kept hon. Members reasonably well informed of those discussions, as did the other pilotage authorities. From time to time hon. Members have referred matters to the Minister, passing questions and comments to him, concerning those discussions.
I have three comments to make concerning the pilotage clauses. The pilotage authorities ought certainly to appreciate the courtesy and consideration which Ministers and their colleagues have given to them during the whole of these considerations and preparations.
My next point is a little critical. Were we at the start of our maritime history, no one in his right mind would create a system of pilotage authorities which was so complicated—not to say chaotic at times—as we have round the shores of the United Kingdom. It is completely illogical. Yet. like so many British institutions, it seems to work very well on nearly all occasions. Our duty is to look at the whole pilotage system, regardless of what has or has not been agreed outside, and to ensure that we get the best pilotage system possible.
I ask the Minister and the pilotage authorities to recognise that, whilst they have agreed these proposals, it is Parliament's job to look at the legislation critically all the way through and to ensure that we get the best pilotage system for our sailors and ships.
I turn now to the disciplinary clauses, particularly clause 25. That clause proposes to make it an offence to take or to be in possession of unauthorised liquor on board a fishing vessel. I appreciate the arguments for and against the clause. I do not understand how an intoxicated person being taken on board a fishing vessel can be charged with being in possession of intoxicating liquor. I thought that being in possession meant that it had to be carried separately from the body. If I were to swallow something and was found to be in possession of it, I should leave it to the lawyers to sort out.
I am concerned about clause 23(5)(a) which provides
 for a person to cease to be entitled to a discharge book ".
I have only little knowledge of the fishing industry. However, in the Merchant Navy as a whole the loss of the discharge book is the ultimate deterrent to any sailor. Fines and other penalties may be acceptable, but the loss of the discharge book should not be considered lightly. I hope that matter will be seriously considered in Committee.
I now ask the Minister a difficult question of which I gave him notice by telephone this afternoon. This concerns the lives of some of our sailors on board ship in port or at sea, though it is not directly concerned with the disciplinary clauses.
Members of the crew of a United Kingdom merchant ship, wherever that ship may be, either at sea or in port, were excluded from the general provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 by virtue of section 2 of that Act. I ask the Minister to confirm that, within the long title, it will be possible for a new clause to be added to the Bill to repeal section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967. As that question may, fortunately or unfortunately, arouse more than passing interest, I should explain why I have asked the question.
I recognise that it is never the right time to ask about either our salaries or the sexual conduct of ourselves or anyone


else. Social legislation is essentially a matter for Back Benchers, not for Front Benchers. Governments do not bring in legislation on capital punishment, divorce or certain other matters, and the Whips have no part in such measures.
I am aware that homosexuality is of intense and prurient interest both inside and outside Parliament at this time. But the time to raise this aspect of this matter is on Second Reading of a Bill which concerns members of the merchant services. I did not choose the timing of the debate on Second Reading. This question concerns the lives and livelihoods of some members of the merchant services who are homosexual, not heterosexual. As I understand the law at present, conduct which is lawful between some male adult citizens of the United Kingdom is unlawful between two adult male United Kingdom citizens if they are both members of the crew of a British ship or of the crew of two different British ships—

Mr. Prescott: Not if they are passengers.

Mr. Ogden: —and that conduct takes place on board a British ship at sea or in port. But, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that conduct would not be unlawful if conducted by the same two people away from the ship, or between one member of a crew and a passenger.
That anomaly was brought to my attention some weeks ago by a person whom I had never met before, from an organisation outside this House, who pointed out the anomalies and asked whether I would raise them. That I have done openly for the House to consider.
I am advised that no other merchant service in the world is subject to similar provisions by the national law of its country. I am unaware of any prosecution made under section 2 of the 1967 Act. I simply put forward the proposition that if we have had an Act of Parliament on our statute book for more than 10 years which has never been enforced and has never produced a prosecution, let alone a conviction, it seems reasonably sensible to say that it is an unnecessary law and ought to be repealed.
I know that there are many commissions considering the reform of the law. When they report is their business, but it

is unlikely that they will be reporting before this Bill gets through, with or without a General Election. I simply say that it is a point that ought to be considered either in Committee or on Report, and I hope that the Minister will note my comments and give a reply later.
Some time ago, during debate on the Finance Bill, the House discussed the question of Ocean Container Lines, taxation policy, the Finance Bill and consortia. Again I put a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Entirely within the provisions of this Bill and its long title, if we can amend other Acts of Parliament within the long title of the Bill, it would surely be in order to introduce an amendment—I am not arguing the merits—to amend a Finance Act. I am not saying whether I would like it or support it, but that it would be in order within the long title. I ask for a reply on that. I await some response from either Ocean Container Lines—my own company, though I have no financial interest in it—or the General Council of British Shipping. It is a point that ought to be dealt with.

Mr. Prescott: That is about the only example of where they do pay tax.

Mr. Ogden: Well, let us see how it goes along. I am asking the simple question: can it be within the purposes of the Bill—very wide on shipping matters—to bring forward such amendment if anyone wanted to bring it forward for discussion?
The officers and members of the General Council of British Shipping have almost invariably been admirable in the way they have tried to inform us of their needs, achievements, hopes, aspirations and problems. They do not do this only at a time of crisis, as so many other industries do. Certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) must be absolutely sick and tired of people approaching him and us when a crisis blows up in Liverpool, people who have not been in touch vfith him during the past 10, 15 or 20 years.
The shipping industry, represented by the GCBS usually tries to keep Members informed. One example of the ways that it does that is by the brief which presumably it sends not only to me but to every Member of Parliament. The


GCBS says, as other Members have already reported, that the Bill, in the main, is an agreed measure and that it supports 50 of the 51 clauses. It has sent us four pages, two to say why it supports 50 of the clauses and two to say why it opposes one particular clause. The council gives cogent reasons which ought to be considered as to why we should support or oppose. I would agree that we can argue most of those as the Bill goes along. The council's final submission—at paragraph 7 of the brief—gives one reason why it suggests that we should oppose clause 31. This is the council's verdict:
 A subsidiary reason for opposing this proposal is that it introduces a controversial element into an otherwise uncontroversial Bill and could therefore delay the passing into law of the many useful provisions which the Bill contains.
If the GCBS is really saying"Everything has been agreed, let it go through on the nod, because we have fixed it and got a package deal—do not rock the boat, let it go through.", then my reply must be"Drop dead, that is not the way Parliament ought to be working ". Legislation is not necessarily good because it is non-controversial. Some of the most horrible legislation has got through this House because it was non-controversial. I once got a Bill through on the nod under Standing Order No. 7. It was non-controversial, but that did not make it a good Bill or a bad Bill. Therefore, the simple fact that a measure is non-controversial ought not to be a good reason why Parliament should not consider it. In fact, as I am sure many hon. Members will agree, if there is even agreement between the two Front Benches, it is time for Back Benchers to take a very special interest indeed.
All I am saying is that we seem to have the makings of a very good Bill. No matter how much agreement there may be outside, it is Parliament's job to look at it as a new piece of legislation and to decide the matter on its merits. At the end, without wasting any time, we should have a Bill of which we can be proud and which will help, strengthen and support the merchant service and shipping industry which we all want to support.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Neville Trotter: The Bill deals with one of the most important

industries in Britain, and one which is both modern and efficient, in considerable contrast with other industries which take up more time in this House. We have the largest merchant fleet in the Western world, and approximately 50 per cent. of the ships of the Common Market. It is no mean feat that our ships earn £3,500 millions worth of foreign currency every year, and it is against that background that we must consider the Bill.
The bible"on merchant shipping seems to be the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which runs to no fewer than 748 sections. In contrast, the Bill is minute. But when one looks at the 1894 Act, it is interesting to discover that the style has a clarity which is sadly lacking in modern legislation. Whether that has something to do with a different style of drafting, or whether it is the complexity of modem life, I do not know, but if one reads the 1894 Act one can actually understand what all the sections say, which is more than can be said in respect of many Bills which come before us nowadays.
Of course, that was a different era. It was the era of"The Onedin Line"of television fame. It was an era when the Act laid down that every member of the crew must have 72 cubic feet—presumably, 2 ft. wide, 6 ft. long and 6 ft. high. That was the total amount of accommodation provided for a member of a crew in those days. It is a very different story from the modern ships in service today.
If passengers were in steerage they were not allowed any spirits on board, and their berths were 18 ins. wide. By law, only one person was allowed to occupy each berth, unless it was husband and wife. The master was fined £50 if he landed passengers at the wrong port. Apparently, they had no other redress. It was interesting that the passenger list required a distinction to be drawn between English, Scottish, Irish and foreign. I note that Mr. Speaker himself is not in the Chair, otherwise he might have commented on the fact that the Welsh were not included in that definition. Presumably they counted as"foreign"in those days.
I turn to more modern times. Ships have changed greatly since those days. In 1894 the largest ships in service were the two Cunarders,"Campania"and"Lucania ", each of 12,900 tons. That is very different


from the 500,000-ton tankers of today. The 1894 legislation was presented to the House in the days of coal. Nowadays we talk about oil and the problems which come with it.
The Bill will modernise provisions for those working at sea and bring welcome amendments in discipline and safety. Today, the shipping industry faces major problems which are the worst for over 40 years. Despite its efficiency and the modern nature of the fleet, there is intense competition from the fleets of other countries. That is partly due to the present downturn in world trade, which is cyclical and which will no doubt recover. It is due partly to the emergence of Third world fleets, and naturally Governments of those countries wish to carry their share of trade to their own countries. With the increase in future world trade over the years, that is something that our Merchant Navy can and will learn to live with.
There is a good future for our fleet, but a problem on the horizon is the enormous growth of the Russian merchant navy in recent years. Not satisfied with rules of State trading in their own country, which require that most imports and exports to and from their country are carried in their own ships, the Russians are making a sustained, determined and very successful attack on the trade among the other countries of the world. They are under-cutting the prices of Western fleets by 30 per cent. Apart from the serious harm that this is doing to the British Merchant Navy, there are obvious serious strategic consequences in terms of world influence and the dependence on Soviet vessels for world trade. Therefore, I welcome clause 41 which gives the Government some power to deal with this situation, if necessary.
The matter of greatest public concern in maritime matters at present is the disastrous strandings of tankers on our cosasts. There have always been shipwrecks, but the consequences now are far worse in a world that lives on oil. With 1 million tons of oil a day passing through the Channel, a wreck can do enormous harm to the environment. The cost of clearing up the pollution is also considerable. In the case of the"Amoco Cadiz"it cost £54 million to clear the pollution from that one disaster.
Surely prevention is better than cure. It is reasonable to ask ourselves to what extent we can prevent strandings by means of legislation.
The first obvious matter to consider must be pilotage. The Bill has many clauses dealing with pilotage but they are confined to district pilots—those taking ships into the approaches of the various harbours around our coasts. It does not deal with deep sea pilotage in the North Sea and the Channel.
The main proposal in this part of the Bill is to set up a pilotage commission and there has been general approval of this by marine interests. However, there is concern in two directions. The first is that there should be a proper balance maintained in the membership of the commission, and, although the Minister has given an assurance, there are those outside the House who would like to see the composition of the commission written into the Bill in the same way that it was written into the 1894 Act for another body that was set up under that legislation.
The second concern is over the powers that could be taken by the new commission. The advisory committee on pilotage has stressed that the powers must be clearly defined to prevent future growth beyond the essential purposes. I am sure that the Minister is sincere in saying that he wishes those powers to be confined but we all know what happens in practice. These bodies tend to grow once they are formed. The advisory committee recommended that the permanent staff should be no more than 10. I should be happy to see written into the Bill a requirement that the number of staff should not exceed 10. That would be an excellent example to set to other bodies.
I instance the National Ports Council. That body costs, in real terms, twice as much as it did when it was set up 10 years ago. We must consider this carefully in Committee.
Should deep sea pilotage be compulsory? There are arguments for and against. However, it is clear that in the international waters involved there must me international agreement if this is to be effective. In 1972 an international working group was set up to consider Channel pilotage. It was chaired by a


representative of Trinity House. It produced rules for a voluntary deep sea pilotage service in the Channel and the North Sea. Those rules were ratified at a conference of North European pilotage authorities in Antwerp in May 1976. To be effective this argument must be approved by IMCO. The Department of Trade undertook to present these proposals to IMCO. Today, two and a half years later, the Department has not done so, unless it did it today or earlier this week. That does not show sufficient speed in dealing with an important issue.
When we consider in Committee, as no doubt we shall, whether there should be compulsory powers, we must turn our minds to two matters. The first is the extent to which there could be exemptions for well-found and well-run ships. The second, on the other side, is whether a requirement for compulsory pilotage should be confined to tankers, LNG carriers and other vessels of that nature. I do not favour the latter proposal because a small tramp steamer can easily hole and sink a very large crude carrier. I think that all ships should be considered if there is to be such a scheme. However, as I have said, there are pros and cons in compulsory pilotage which we must consider in Committee.
The main need is to ensure that ships are operated properly, and there is alarming evidence available that many foreign vessels are not. This is very much an international problem because international agreement is needed to enforce any rules that are made.
Three States have rights over a ship. The first is the flag State in whose port the ship is registered. The flag State often finds it very difficult to enforce legislation because the ship in question may hardly ever visit its country of registration. There are probably British ships which seldom enter a British port, and when it comes to places such as Liberia, Panama and other tax havens most of their ships never go anywhere near the country in which they are registered. That makes it difficult in practice for such a flag State to enforce regulations against its ships. It is easier for a port State because if a vessel calls there, regulations can be enforced if the law internationally allows it to be.
The coastal State is in difficulty. It often suffers from the malpractices of pass-

ing ships and it has great difficulty in enforcing the law against them if they do not call at its ports. It is hardly clear, for instance, how far out to sea the jurisdiction of a coastal State extends. That is a matter about which lawyers will argue at great length. What is clear is that territorial waters still have some significance and meaning. It is also clear that the United Kingdom, for some extraordinary reason, retains territorial waters of only three miles. I hope that the Minister will address himself to this because there is a clear move in the world to 12 miles. France is moving in that direction, and I understand that the EEC is suggesting that all members should move to 12 miles. Perhaps this Bill is a suitable means to bring in an extension of territorial waters to 12 miles.
The 1960 and 1972 international regulations for the prevention of collisions are enforceable not only by flag States but also by coastal States in their own territorial waters. So for that set of provisions territorial waters have considerable significance.
But even in territorial waters ships in general have the right of innocent passage. As I understand it, we cannot prosecute ships even for the discharge of oil in the three-mile limit unless the vessel comes into one of our ports. This filthy habit is usually indulged in by ships which are passing and have no intention of coming to Britain.
The United Nations conference on the law of the sea is suggesting that the right to innocent passage should be lost if vessels deliberately or negligently pollute the waters as they pass. However, I need hardly remind the House that that conference has been talking for some 10 years without coming to a final conclusion. I am afraid that we cannot rely upon any solution from it for some years to come.
It is easy for any Government to legislate to take powers out to sea. But there is a warning here which we should consider. That example could be followed elsewhere in the world. Although any regulations that we passed would no doubt be sensible and fair, there are rulers around the world who could not be relied upon to do the same. President Idi Amin does not have a coastline, but there are other gentlemen with peculiar ways of administering their affairs who do.


There could be a danger to our Merchant Navy if we set an example by pressing too far in legislating on a national basis for international waters.
There are appalling delays in bringing into force the international agreements needed to deal with these international problems. IMCO is the only United Nations body based in London. It is very active and energetic, but inevitably it takes a considerable time to agree among its member States the various conventions which it ultimately passes.
The sad factor about IMCO is that, although it is energetic, it is powerless to get its reports ratified by its member Governments. It takes five years on average, and in some cases 10 years, for these conventions once agreed by IMCO to be ratified by the member Governments. This will not do.
The safety of life at sea convention of 1974 which among other provisions required ships to have radar—I might say that British ships have that requirement already under United Kingdom law—has still not been ratified, although the convention has been out for four years. Eight countries are still required to ratify it before it becomes law internationally, and the target date is 1980. In other words, it will have taken six years to obtain ratification of a convention as important as that. Seven sets of amendments to the safety of life at sea convention of 1960 have been agreed by IMCO, but none has been ratified and brought into force and they will be overtaken by a later convention. The marine pollution convention of 1973 has so far been ratified by only three States: Jordan, which has no tankers, Kenya. which has three tankers with a total tonnage of 4,600 tons, and Tunisia which also has three tankers but with a slightly more respectable total tonnage of 51,000 tons. Those are the only three countries—one with no tankers whatever—which have so far ratified the 1973 convention.
It is a great pity that the United Kingdom has not set an example by ratifying this important convention earlier. It is a great pity that even one year has been lost and that this legislation was not passed last year. I must declare an interest. I put down a private Member's Bill to enable this to be done last year

but, unfortunately, time could not be found to debate it.
The target now is 1981, eight years after the convention was agreed by IMCO. This is an important convention because it deals with the filthy habits of tankers at sea. Many times more oil is deposited in the sea from these filthy habits than from wrecks. Only 10 per cent. of oil in the sea comes from the wrecks which draw so much public attention. The rest comes from dirty habits and operating practices that will be outlawed once the convention becomes law.
I entirely agree with the Minister that major efforts are needed to eliminate substandard ships and substandard crews from the seas. Accidents are usually due to human error, bad training and bad seamanship. Substandard tends to be a question of ownership rather than the flag of the ship.
I recently visited Liberia which has the largest fleet in the world. I found that country very conscious of the need to administer the international rules in relation to its ships. It was pointed out to me that many of the leading tanker companies in the world had registered their ships in Liberia. I was assured that Liberia was well aware of the need to ensure adequate standards. But there is the problem that Liberian ships hardly ever go to Liberia and that makes it difficult for the rules to be enforced.
In July, there was a conference on standards for training and watch-keeping for seafarers, which set the first international standards in these matters and the Under-Secretary of State for Trade announced it at the time as a major step forward in marine safety. He showed himself to be a man of sound judgment.
As a result of this convention, there will be, for the first time, a requirement for constant proficiency and up-to-date knowledge in deck, engine and radio at sea techniques. Why have we not taken powers in the Bill to ratify that convention? I appreciate that there may be technical problems, but I fear that we may again see unfortunate delays. The House may be too busy with other matters.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I want to correct


the hon. Gentleman. Powers are conferred in the Bill to enable us to ratify that convention.

Mr. Trotter: I am delighted to hear that. Obviously I had not detected that fact because the Bill is not written in the style of the 1894 Bill. I am delighted to hear what the Minister says and 8will be glad to support the proposal in Committee.
In general, this is an important Bill and I welcome it. The details of a number of major matters will have to be examined closely in Committee. One or two important amendments will have to be put down at that stage. On Second Reading, I am glad to give my support to the Bill.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I should like to join in the prevailing welcome to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, it is effectively a seaman's charter. He said that having had hard personal experience in the industry. I can only say, on a more abstract basis, that it is right in itself. We must carry on our efforts for health and safety at work—efforts of which the Government can be proud—and extend similar safeguards and provisions to those at sea. The seaman has a hard, tough job. disruptive to his domestic life and he has the right to the best possible terms and conditions. Any procedures or codes of practice which can provide them should be welcomed.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) say that a Conservative Government would carry through the same legislation. We shall not be taking him up on the offer, but we are grateful for it. I must warn him that if they intend to oppose the provisions to stop undesirable overseas takeovers, the Tories will find that logically difficult to justify. It would be wrong for the party that criticises or opposes takeovers and interventions by the National Enterprise Board to support takeovers by foreigners and undesirable ones at that. But that is a passing observation in a non-partisan spirit.
I represent an area which feels vulnerable to oil spillage and accidents involving tankers so I welcome the provisions on pilotage and the oil pollution conven-

tion. But my real concern with the Bill is more limited. Fishermen play all too little part in these proposals. The Bill is a vessel with many cargoes, but there is all too little for the fisherman.
I extend a personal welcome to the provisions relating to drink on board fishing vessels. This is a serious problem which has caused a number of accidents, injuries, even disasters. One example is that of the"Wyre Victory"at Fleetwood, which foundered on the rocks in January 1976. I can give an instance from Fleetwood because that involves me in no recriminations about Grimsby's vessels. The inquiry was told that there was considerable drinking, that there were demands for more drink, that there was drink in the wheelhouse and that a bosun was smoking pot at the time of the accident.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Gars-ton): What is called a happy ship.

Mr. Mitchell: A happy ship indeed. One cannot follow the Methodistical inclination, which might come naturally to some hon. Members, to ban drink entirely from vessels. There is a need for a social life on board ship. We have to strike a balance, and the balance in the Bill between outlawing what might be called"private enterprise"drink and allowing authorised drink is the right one.
My soundings in Grimsby show that there is a real and serious concern about this problem. That is why there is a general welcome there, with some strong reservations, for this provision. Yet a number of questions will need to be raised about drink. One is exemplified by that happy ship the"Wyre Victory "—that is, whether the provisions should be extended to drugs. There is also that question whether the provisions about searching should apply to the docks as well as to the vessel itself. I should be reluctant to see that because the fisherman is treated with too little respect and given too little dignity and too few rights as it is, but the argument has been put.
There are problems also with authorised supplies. Many accidents have been caused by the consumption of authorised liquor. There is obvious scope for Committee discussion there.
So my welcome is a general one, with obvious reservations. My main concern is that fishermen have once again been


left out from too much of the Bill. That is sad for the fishing industry, whose fishermen are treated as second-class citizens. It is an important problem because many fishermen come from or go to jobs in the Merchant Navy. There is a continuous interchange of people between fishing and the Merchant Navy. An anomalous situation will be created if because of this kind of beneficial legislation conditions are drastically improved in the Merchant Navy, as I hope they will be, and there is no parallel progress in the fishing industry.
The accident record in the fishing industry can only be deplored. In August three of my constituents were killed in the fire on the"Roman ". There have been nine deaths through fires since January 1973 on Grimsby fishing vessels alone. I am told by the Department that only one-tenth of deaths on fishing vessels are the result of fire. That throws a horrifying light on what the overall statistics must be.
Fishing is a dangerous job. Each year at the harvest of the sea service at Grimsby parish church there is a roll call of the fishermen who have been killed in the course of their work over the previous year, and the roll call is normally 10 to a dozen strong each year. Between January 1977 and August of this year 10 Grimsby fishermen were killed in the course of their work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, the industry is 10 times more dangerous than mining. It is the most dangerous industry.
My own limited experience on a fishing vessel was gained this summer, owing to the non-election. That experience showed just how dangerous the work is, with slippery decks, with machinery which must often be exposed if it is to operate efficiently, and with fishermen being buffeted, unable to walk securely. It is a dangerous and exposed job.
I am glad that the Bill is bringing us to a position in which we can have a self-regulating industry for merchant seamen and a code of practice for their industry. But I want the same for the fishing industry. The Bill goes a little way towards it, but by no means as far as is necessary. Considerable urgency is needed.
The fishing industry needs a code of practice that will cover all aspects of work and conditions. Let us consider training to deal with fires. We were told some years ago that owners would send people away on courses for fire training. That undertaking does not seem to have been fulfilled by most owners, and there is all too little fire training. Many vessels do not carry out fire drill.
There is a need for a motorman's certificate to allow people to deal with simple repairs and keep vessels going without risk. There is a need, too, for safety officers on board vessels and for proper drills. We also need provisions for the regulation of hours, of manning levels and of rest periods. All those matters are vital to the industry, but we do not have the code of practice that the fishermen deserve.
Most important, we do not have the essential basis, which is a decasualised industry. We cannot move quickly enough towards decasualisation in the fishing industry, because so much else depends on that. With the contraction of the distant water effort, fishermen are constantly being laid off. They naturally complain that they have no redundancy provisions. They are angry when they see the redundancy benefits in other industries, particularly in the steel industry, and again feel only too strongly that they are in a neglected industry and are the forgotten men of that neglected industry. They have risked their lives for a pathetic dismissal.
We have a need for the framework of the kind of code of practice that I hope to see evolving for the Merchant Navy. As the Bill does not go far enough in that direction, I call on my right hon. Friend to bring the three Departments concerned together. The problems of the fishermen are dealt with by three Departments—the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Fishing tends to fall into a kind of limbo. Therefore, there is a need to bring the Departments together.
There is also a need for a full inquiry that will initiate the necessary steps to give the fishing industry the kind of code of practice that I have talked about, the kind that the Merchant Navy will have as a result of this legislation. My welcome


for the Bill is modified by a central preoccupation which I, as a representative of a fishing constituency, must have and must voice. We must move quickly.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Other hon. Members have declared their interests. My first qualification for speaking in the debate is that I spent four and a half years on the lower deck of a Royal Navy ship which sailed under the rather glorious name of HMS"Wave ". That sounds as if it performed in the front row of the chorus. It finished up on the rocks of St. Ives. The vessel was a fleet sweeper of about 1,000 tons.
My second reason for taking part in the debate is that many of my constituents work in the piloting service. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. The pilots operate under Trinity House and work off Spithead and the Solent. I know a number of them well. I have great respect for the job that they do.
After the Secretary of State's announcement, there might be a change in the form of their employment. At present they are self-employed. They are independently minded and have strong views. One therefore has some sympathy with the Government in trying to produce a measure that will meet with their general approval. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. East (Mr. Prescott) say that it is a complex subject. I have found it complex and almost as bad as trying to understand the rate support grant. We are in agreement on that matter.
There is no doubt that the majority of the pilots welcome the establishment of a pilotage commission. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) also hopes to take part in the debate, so I shall not take up too much time but it is sad that we must have a pilotage commission. I believe that Trinity House could do that job. I realise that that view is not universally held by the pilots. But Trinity House has done a great deal in the last few years to put its house in order. If things were wrong Trinity House has bent over backwards to put them right. When I have visited its establishments I have been impressed by what it has done and what it is doing. It is a pity that a type of quango

is to be set up. It will be more costly. The instrument for doing that job exists already.
The pilots are anxious about the composition of the Commission. They do not wish any watering down of the shipowners' representation. Clause 4(4) states:
 The Commission shall have power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the performance of any of its functions.
That seems to be a wide provision. We must examine that carefully in Committee.
The Secretary of State and the official Opposition are aware that the pilots have submitted many amendments. They made many comments on the White Paper. However, few if any of their suggestions have been included in the Bill. I cannot be sure that none of them has been included but the suggestions that I have checked do not seem to have been taken up. I hope that they will be pursued by the official Opposition in Committee.
I saw the Minister at the United Kingdom Pilots Association reception a few days ago. It has been meeting in the last few days. It has reiterated its belief in compulsory pilotage as a general principle for all ports. It passed a resolution that all vessels of 300 gross tonnage and over carrying hazardous cargoes be compelled to take a pilot on board when navigating in all pilotage districts. I should think that there is considerable support for that view in the House.
Clause 6 deals with that aspect. I understand that the pilotage commission will be able to recommend compulsory pilotage. After the disasters which are still in our minds such as that involving the"Amoco Cadiz ", I hope that the commission will act quickly on that matter. The pilots believe that it is not a question whether pilotage should be made compulsory but when it is made compulsory. That is right. Some of the stories I have heard from pilots about near accidents in the Solent make my hair stand on end. Before long, unless we move quickly, there will be a major disaster in the area, given the large numbers of huge tankers that sail up to Fawley through the Solent.
Clause 20 deals with pollution, and I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he will increase the penalties. He


made two announcements. I welcome the other one about pilots' pensions. The right hon. Gentleman has made an auspicious start there, because that is certainly a matter of which the pilots will be delighted to learn.
One is bound to ask, however, whether clause 20 goes far enough. I do not want to repeat Monday's debate, and I know that the Minister must have had to discuss the subject ad nauseam, but if, like the French, we are to widen our legislation to protect our coastline and our wild life, as I hope we shall, can we not use this measure to do so more quickly? The French are not only about to enlarge their territorial control to 12 miles, but they have established a coastguard patrol service.
The Canadians, too, seem to be far more vigilant than we are. They insist on all private oil operators providing a wide range of equipment which must be air transportable. They seem to possess a wider selection of items than we do, with booms, skimmers, and the rest. It is subject to regular Government testing and control, and it is all paid for by the companies.
In this respect, who will meet the costs in this country, and will there be sufficient qualified surveyors to oversee this sort of task? I assume that the four studies to which the Minister of State referred on Monday will throw some light on some of these matters.
For me the most sickening aspect of any major oil spillage is the sight of dead and dying seabirds. This country is rapidly becoming the last haven for many of these species in Europe. We therefore cannot be tough enough in our attitude to the whole problem. I do not think that we shall have to worry about knocking seal pups on the head in the Orkneys if we go on pushing oil into the sea. We shall kill them anyway with the oil they swallow.
Why, under clause 24, is Trinity House to lose control of the Northern Lights? I was taken round them by a skipper based in the Orkneys. He was proud of them and as far as I know they do an excellent job.
It will be no surprise to the Minister to know that we cannot support clause 31, as my hon. Friend the Member for

Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) indicated to him in the summer. I think that my hon. Friend said that the clause was objectionable protectionism and an indefensible extension of State control. I am not sure whether that might not be a little too tough, but at the moment we are not convinced in favour of clause 31 and we intend to oppose it. I welcome the Bill.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I join in offering a welcome to the Bill, and I, like others, only wish that it had been possible for the Bill to have been introduced in the last Session—something for which many of us hoped and pressed. It is only fair for me to declare a strong constituency concern. In South Shields, at the mouth of the Tyne, we have one of the biggest seafaring communities in the country. There is there a remarkably high proportion of seagoing officers and men and a considerable number of pilots, too. Their home and background are South Shields.
That is not surprising because we also have in the area the famous marine college which has made it possible for many people from all over the world to obtain their qualifications in South Shields. Therefore, the Bill is a matter of supreme concern to the area. It is hard to find a family in South Shields without a member who at some time or other has been at sea. The area is wholly committed to the sea in building and repairing ships as well as in serving on such vessels.
I share the delight of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that it has fallen to a Labour Government to carry through this great change in a series of major Bills. That is a major change of attitude towards seafarers and those who work on board ship. However impossible it may be to equalise the conditions completely, gradually, by the three stages mentioned by my hon. Friend, we have moved much nearer to attaining equality of treatment of those who go to sea and those who remain on shore.
I wish to say a few words about pilotage. We all know that pilots are independent people. They treasure the fact that they still regard themselves as self-employed. Until fairly recently many of them accepted the responsibility of


maintaining their own ships. Inevitably, this position has changed to some extent over the years, but the pilots have retained that strong feeling of independence and the desire for self-regulation.
The pilots welcome the broad provisions of the Bill, but there are anxieties about many matters which will need to be discussed and, if possible, improved. The pilots require further assurance about their position on the new commission. The minimum provision that now applies is inadequate, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The pilots want some assurance that they will be given a proper share of responsibility on that body. If we are considering reducing the numbers on the commission, we must also consider putting on it working pilots who have experience of different geographical areas. I know how strongly the pilots feel about these matters because only this morning I met some of their representatives. They feel very strongly about the requirement for compulsory pilotage, with a limited number of exemptions. I am not clear why the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Pilotage was not accepted. That began with the assumption of compulsory pilotage and moved on to make such other special exemptions as might be required.
A number of factors have emerged during recent years that make this a much more important issue than in the past. There is the size of some vessels and the small complement of crew to operate them. Almost inevitably the master of a vessel of this size, who may have brought his vessel through bad weather and difficult conditions, may arrive in harbour completely worn out. So may his crew. These are the conditions that demand a qualified pilot service.
Such a service is made necessary, too, by the rapidly changing conditions of modern river traffic. The fact that a master may have been on the river before does not mean that he can know its conditions at a particular time. When we consider such factors in relation to the dangerous cargoes which are moving in our waters, the question of compulsory qualified pilotage must be given very serious consideration. The pilots are right to press their claim. We must discuss this very carefully.

Mr. David Price: I have sympathy with the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he realise that there are two factors here? There is knowledge of local waters, and there is knowledge of these large vessels. One needs to be qualified in both. The fact that someone is a good pilot on ordinary vessels does not mean that he is necessarily competent to handle a 250,000-ton tanker, which nowadays often docks under computer control.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That point is fully understood. The pilot today is trained to very high requirements. I am in touch with many of the pilots and I appreciate the fears which they have expressed.
We are delighted that such a big step forward has been taken in the treatment of seamen, including the issue of disciplinary powers. It is a real advance, and I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East mentioned that we started the process in 1970. It ran up against some vigorous concern then, which stimulated a much more vocal expression of the modern demands of the seamen. I am delighted we have been able to move much further along the line.
We express concern about fisheries because I do not see how one can avoid taking effective action on the drink question, although I appreciate the problem of making it an effective provision in the Bill. The Government were courageous and right to ensure that such a provision was in the Bill, rather than baulking at the problems that arise from it.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) who opened the debate for the Opposition raised the question of the advisability or otherwise of the Government's becoming involved in the use of overseas aid and support funds to secure orders for ships from such countries as Poland, India and elsewhere. The crucial point, to which I have never heard a clear answer from the Opposition, is that if orders are to be placed—if not with us, with another country which will be equally competitive—why we should impose upon ourselves the double disadvantage of preventing our yards from building the ships and increasing competition.
Other hon. Members will no doubt raise a range of important issues which


they would like to see included in the Bill. I hope that they will not lose sight of the importance of getting its provisions on the statute book. So often, the best is the enemy of the good. We must make certain that the Bill, if possible in an improved form, reaches the statute book so that it can help my constituents and many others to lead a safer life at sea.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I help the House? There are six hon. Members, that I know of, who want to speak in the debate. We have roughly one hour and 25 minutes left. That allows each hon. Member 14 minutes. If hon. Members bear that in mind we shall be able to allow everyone who wants to do so to take part in the debate. I should point out that two of the hon. Members concerned are having a little refreshment after listening to their colleagues.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I shall do my best not only to speak for fewer than 14 minutes, but to speak for fewer than 10 minutes. I am among those hon. Members who have signed a motion on the subject of 10-minute speeches, and I try to practise what I preach.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) about the importance of trying to get the Bill on to the statute book. Like the hon. Member, I have a strong constituency interest in the measure. I know he will agree that it is not only the seafarers among our constituents who are involved. There are all those working in the many industries supporting the seafarer. The shipping industry is one of our great industries and it is also the centre of major economic activity. It engenders further economic activity around it. The health of that industry is essential not only to seafarers, but to many others in the peripheral industries.
I have a personal interest in that there are shipping companies among the companies with which I am involved. I declare that personal, commercial interest. On both counts, constituency and personal, I add my welcome to this Bill.
We have already in this decade had two measures dealing with shipping—in 1970 and 1974. It may be said that we legislators have not been doing our job very well if there has to be a third measure in the space of 10 years. That is not a fair criticism, because the shipping scene has been changing rapidly, especially as a result of major developments in the size of ships and increasing international action to deal with consequential problems. It is right to keep our maritime legislation up to date. That is why in many ways we have before us a miscellaneous provisions Bill.
It has been said that we should have had a separate pilotage Bill. It makes sense that from time to time we bring our legislation up to date. The basic statute guiding our merchant shipping affairs remains the 1894 Act. Credit should go to our predecessors who placed that measure on the statute book. We are still using it as a basic framework for our legislation. Credit must go to our predecessors who, many years ago, before any of us in this place was born, introduced that measure.
The objective of the Bill is to strengthen British shipping in the broadest sense. I am sure that that proposition appeals to everybody. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said from the Opposition Front Bench, British shipping remains one of our great industries. That is not fully appreciated. We remain a great maritime nation and we should rejoice in that fact.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives gave some figures in support of his proposition. One figure that he did not give is of especial importance. British shipping made a net direct contribution to our current balance of payments last year of over £1,000 million. If I may correct my hon. Friend in one respect, industrial relations in the industry, apart from the 1966 strike of which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had some experience, have been good and there has been a strike-free record in broad terms. Apart from a little unofficial action in the 1960s, that has been the position since 1920.

Mr. Prescott: That is why wages are low.

Mr. Price: In spite of all the problems, British shipping has had a remarkable industrial record compared with, for example, the motor car industry.
This is a tough and testing time for not only British shipping but world shipping. We are still in a slump. It is recognised that the regulation of shipping must be on a world-wide basis. However, we need to have our own supporting legislation. In many instances the Bill is implementing measures that have been agreed internationally. Tribute must be paid to IMCO. Our basic national interest must be to maintain the freedom to sail the seas of the world. That is essential. That is straight commercial good sense for us.
There are three clearly developing problems that are concerning our industry. One problem has been the growing threat from the Eastern bloc, especially from Soviet ships. I welcome the robust attitude that the Under-Secretary of State has taken at the EEC Council of Ministers and I believe that the Bill will strengthen his hand.
It is clear that that sort of problem is much better handled internationally. It may he too much to try to handle it on a world-wide basis, but let us do it on a regional basis.
That applies to the second problem that is worrying the industry, namely, the policies of the United States of America.
Thirdly, there is the increasing problem of what, to use shorthand, I call national protectionism in many parts of the world. That is personified in the crude formula of the United Nations liner code of 40–40–20.
I need not remind hon. Members that British shipping still has a large stake in the cross trades. Those who care about the future of British shipping and British seafarers would be concerned if we were to lose out on the cross trades.
There is a danger of the world relapsing into a form of latter-day mercantilism. I should hate to see us being asked to re-enact the navigation Acts as a defensive measure. We must continue to stand for an open seas policy based on free and fair competition. But that does not mean that we should not insist upon the highest standards being practised in seamanship and ship management. That

is why I welcome the improvements in pilotage proposed in the Bill.
The same arguments apply to safety and health on our ships. The protection from pollution by ships is vital. Clearly, it has to be done on an international basis. Clause 20 gives effect to such an international convention, but one's lingering doubts arise over the problems of how these international conventions are to be enforced. This is the vital matter.
It is no good passing conventions of the highest purpose and technically competent if they cannot be enforced. This is where I have a lot of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who represents us in the European Assembly. We must think at least in European terms of these enforcements. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)—who I know has very strong views on what the French should be doing on measures against pollution from the sea—will agree that we ought to get together on this within Europe. It seems to me that one of the proper purposes of the EEC is to be able to do this collectively.
Sensible international conventions and sound domestic legislation such as this Bill and the Acts of 1970 and 1974 all have an important part to play in maintaining safety at sea, in reducing the risks of accidents and in reducing the incidence of pollution. Nevertheless, at the end of the day it is the human factor which is decisive.
I was particularly interested in the evidence from the Department of Trade to our colleagues on the Expenditure Committee. In its written evidence of 10th May 1978 the Department said:
 As was clear from an international symposium held in Washington in January, human error is the major cause of marine casualties.
One can say that again. I hope that the whole House will agree with me that although we wish to give the Bill its Second Reading it is no substitute for well-trained and well-motivated crews. Indeed, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East in many of the things that he said about crew conditions. We must, therefore, jealously guard our own crew standards. Equally, we must


insist upon similar standards being practised by the entire international community.
But the continuing problem that remains—this is the real issue—is how he international community enforces agreed standards. Until it does, the risk of further incidents such as those involving the"Amoco Cadiz ","Eleni V"and"Christos Bitas"will remain with us for ever and haunt us.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Gars-ton): I shall take your advice, Mr. Speaker, and make my speech as brief as possible. On this Bill I speak from experience as a seaman from 1937 to 1946. I was 141- years of age when started my sea career. From listening to at least one speaker from the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who referred to the conditions prevailing at the, time of"The Onedin Line ", it is obvious that he knows very little of the conditions which prevailed in the years that I was at sea and, indeed, long after that.
The conditions at sea to which I shall refer are not something belonging to the nineteenth century. They obtained during the years to which I have referred and, indeed, for long after the post-war period. That is why I am mainly concerned with, or keenly interested in, the health and safety aspects of the Bill.
Everyone recognises that the hazards of a seafaring career, as has been said, are far more dangerous than those in mining and in many other industries that we recognise, quite rightly, as being dangerous and hazardous to those employed in them. Little regard was given in the past to the life of the seaman at sea and to the conditions under which he worked. For example, during the first year or so of my sea career I worked a system of four hours at work and four hours sleeping, during the whole of the 24 hours, on long voyages. Those conditions did not prevail ashore in any industry. The effects of that system on the health of seamen and on their efficiency at work were, to say the least, tremendous.
There are hazards in seamen's work. Seamen work in conditions which in no circumstances prevail in shore industries.

A ship at sea, in many instances in bad weather, still has to be manned. The work has to be done on a seven-day week basis. Many major accidents could have been avoided had there been sufficient regulations governing health and safety at sea.
No one paid regard to seamen, because it was felt that, for some unknown reason, they were a different breed of animal from other workers. Because they were part of the tough world of seafarers, it was felt that they would put up with conditions which would not be tolerated in shore-based industries.
Parallels can be drawn between industries ashore and seafaring. For example, the generating industry requires continuous working, as does a ship at sea, but conditions in the generating industry are vastly different. Normal safety conditions and health provisions apply in that industry even though it has to run for 24 hours a day seven days a week. Simply because seamen have to work seven days a week does not mean that conditions and health and safety regulations cannot be dramatically improved.
In earlier years, any seaman who sailed the west coast of Africa invariably finished up with malaria and at some time during a voyage had dysentry. No hospital treatment would be available aboard the vessel, except that administered by the chief steward. Usually that was a No. 9—the cure-all and panacea for all the ills which seamen ever suffered.

Mr. Prescott: And salt tablets.

Mr. Loyden: And salt tablets as well. I am glad that we have now moved away from the conditions which then prevailed. But I want to impress on the House that those conditions prevailed not only in the nineteenth century, but in the very recent past in terms of our history as a seafaring nation.
I should like to cite a personal experience on a cargo vessel. I had an accident due mainly to lack of regulations prevailing at that time and the parsimonious nature of those who managed ships. I sustained an injury when coming down from the table of a foremast. We were using rotten gear—a rotten gantline—which should have been renewed. A new rope would have had to be broken out to provide a new gantline. That cost was


taken into account in deciding to continue with the old gantline, which got carried away, and I had a 20 ft. or 30 ft. fall. I could not get immediate treatment on board because there was no doctor on the vessel. Again, it was the responsibility of the chief steward, who was not qualified to do anything but to hand out tablets.
Fortunately, my ship was in harbour at Rio de Janeiro, so I was able to go ashore to get treatment. In other circumstances I might have had a very long wait for treatment. It could be days or weeks before a seaman got proper medical treatment for an accident at sea. Such accidents were many and varied.
I am glad that the Bill is before the House because, as the Minister said, it is very important. My right hon. Friend sees it only as part of an ongoing revision of the Merchant Shipping Act until we remove all the iniquitous parts of that Act. Seamen represent a vital part of our industrial set-up. Therefore, we must provide them with the justifiable rewards which they should be receiving for their part in the running of this important industry.
During the passage of the Bill I shall take a keen interest in the part dealing with pilotage. As a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, I am responsible, together with others, for the pilotage section of the union. Therefore, I shall take a keen interest in all references to pilotage.
I have no personal experience of the fishing industry but I certainly have a knowledge of it in the general sense. I shall be taking a keen interest on behalf of my union and of the fishing fraternity in general when the Bill goes through its various stages.
This Bill ought to be welcomed. think that the House ought to think very carefully about clause 31. We have statements that the British shipping industry and the seafaring industry are still a vital part of Britain's economic welfare and well-being. If that is so, it ought to be made patently clear that we intend to maintain our fleet under the British flag and under British registration, and that any question of allowing the take-over of ships in the way to which the clause relates will be completely unacceptable so far as the future of the industry is concerned.
Everyone must accept that seamen, probably above all others, have accepted great technological changes in their industry. I have seen dramatic changes taking place in manning scales over a decade and a half. I accept that that was partly due to technological changes that required different types of vessels, such as container vessels, roll-on/roll-off vessels, tankers and so on. I also believe that there is a need to sustain the industry as a major part of general industry in the United Kingdom, and in that sense clause 31 is in the interests of the future of seamen and the industry generally.
Obviously, many of the matters raised here tonight will be dealt with in greater detail in Committee. I hope that consideration will be given to them. I hope that we shall be able to improve the Bill.
As I said in my opening remarks, we ought to see this not as the be-all and end-all of the revision and improvement life for merchant seamen but as part of the continuing progress by the Government towards provision for people who enter this very important career.

9.57 p.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: Like other hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, obviously with a great deal of direct knowledge and experience, of seafaring—and the House has followed their observations with the greatest of respect and interest—I welcome the Bill, but I have some reservations.
Considering the importance of shipping to the economy and, indeed, to the life of our country, it really is astonishing that we have had to wait so long for this Bill and, in particular, for proposals dealing with pilotage. That there is need for reform in the arrangements for pilotage, which are still governed by the provisions of an Act passed in 1913, has been self-evident for many years. There is certainly a need for improved discipline in the approaches to our ports, especially in estuarial waters. I have particularly in mind the narrow waters of the Thames estuary.
As several hon. Members have said, one cannot eliminate human error or mechanical failure altogether where shipping is concerned, but by devising uniform procedures which apply to all vessels, irrespective of their flag, type or size, it should


be possible to increase safety and to reduce the possibility of accident and disaster.
Over 20 years have passed since the closing of the Suez canal which, together with the growth in energy demand, led to the development and use of super tankers as the most economic method of transporting oil from the Middle East to Europe round the Cape of Good Hope. That, in turn, encouraged the growth in the size of ships carrying other types of hazardous cargo, such as liquefied gases and toxic and dangerous chemicals. It used to be argued that as these tankers increased in size their numbers would diminish and there would be a reduction of spillages at sea. That has proved to be a false hope. Indeed, as the recent report of the advisory committee on oil pollution of the sea makes plain, the number of pollution incidents around our coasts rose from 500 in 1975 to 597 in 1976 and to 642 last year—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Merchant Shipping Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Bates.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Sir B. Braine: As a consequence of this increase in size, there are now vessels plying our coastal waters which draw 80 ft. when fully laden. In fact, the number of ships lost around our coasts and in the Channel approaches represents a high proportion of the world's total shipping losses. Paragraph 12 of the report of the committee of scientists on scientific and technological aspects of the"Torrey Canyon"disaster suggested that on average one in 10 of all accidents at sea take place in this area and in the Western approaches.
Inevitably, the presence of many wrecks around our coasts in itself presents a special hazard, since many existing charts do not show wrecks at a depth greater than 40 ft. because when these were drawn this was considered to be a safe depth. Incidentally, I am astonished that the Bill omits any reference to the sensible proposals of Trinity House that

it should be given the right to mark channels and sunken wrecks. That is perhaps something to which we can turn our attention in Committee.
Another change in recent years has been the appearance in our waters of an ever-increasing number of flag of convenience vessels, which sometimes fail to maintain good standards of navigational discipline. Equally, some national fleets are operated without regard to the best standards of efficiency and discipline. A recent report by the navigational research centre of the Netherlands Maritime Institute states that there are at least 450 tankers in service which are a danger to their crew's lives, to their cargoes and to the environment.
Of course, our own mercantile marine is not only the fourth largest in the world but is also modern, efficient and has a consistently good safety record. But not all the ships plying our waters are British. Not all of these are modern and efficient. As a consequence, some of us are growing increasingly apprehensive about the safety of navigation around our coasts and in estuarial waters.
It follows from this that the greatest single step we can take to improve safety in the approaches to our ports, and in the narrow waters, would be to strengthen the role and authority of pilots. Traditionally, United Kingdom pilots are self-employed. There has been a reference to their sturdy spirit of independence. That is the best safeguard that we have got: it ensures they will not yield to pressure from masters or shipping owners and will exercise their independent judgment in bringing ships safely into port. But the plain fact is that they do not form a unified profession, and some are excluded from the benefits which nowadays professional men are expected to enjoy. By and large, the profession compares unfavourably with the standards enjoyed by pilots of other leading maritime nations.
Existing controls with regard to the movement of ships around our coast and in the estuaries are in a chaotic state. Take our experience in the Thames Estuary. On occasions there have been conflicts between the instructions of the Port of London Authority and the pilots regarding the handling of vessels. The important point here is that the pilot or master may be liable for his error


if there is an accident, but the port authority is not. There have also been instances of small, unpiloted foreign vessels entering the Thames, not observing any of the rules and meandering up the river, sometimes in the wrong channel, without anyone being the wiser. I was told of one incident involving a German ship carrying nuclear waste up the river unbeknown to the port authority, and not being detected until a leak occurred in the container.
I submit that compulsory pilotage should be mandatory for vessels proceeding through the English Channel and it should also be a mandatory requirement that shipping should not merely report position and speed, but should respond immediately to instructions.
The situation close to our shores and particularly in the Thames is different. Here, very large oil tankers and LNG carriers are obliged to accept compulsory pilotage. Yet, surprisingly, small specialised carriers trading within the area from Hamburg in the north to Brest in the south and around our coasts are exempt from carrying pilots, despite the fact that they may be carrying highly toxic and dangerous cargo of the kind listed by the Port of London authority as dangerous goods carried by sea. There is no rhyme or reason for such exemptions.
In addition to this category of exempted vessels, certain masters are granted pilotage certificates which bear no relation to the size of the ship or the nature of its cargo. This is a practice open to the strongest objection. There is evidence to suggest that we are more lax in granting such certificates than other maritime nations. It has been suggested to me that Continental ports grant far fewer pilotage exemptions to British masters than we do to foreign masters.
I am concerned about the risks which continue to be taken in estuarial waters and particularly in the Thames with smaller vessels. Some of these carry hazardous cargoes on deck and it is not unknown for drums containing toxic material to break loose and be lost overboard. Since it is the nature of the cargo rather than the size of the vessel that matters, exempt rules and pilotage certificates should be replaced with compulsory pilotage in every case where there is a hazard.
Since there could be conflict between commercial interests and safety, it is imperative that pilots should enjoy an independent status in order to enable them to withstand interference with their professional judgment. What is needed, therefore, is the creation of a proper salaried service with regular terms of employment, under the control of a pilotage board which ensures the highest standards of professional competence and integrity and is independent of shipping and commercial interests.
There is a particular reason, however, why I favour the establishment of compulsory pilotage and severe sanctions against infringement of navigational regulations. The dangers of oil and chemical tankers carrying hazardous cargoes colliding at sea or running aground and breaking up are generally understood. What is far less well understood is the real danger of interaction between accidents involving ships carrying dangerous cargoes in estuarial waters close to land or ships already berthed and high fire risk installations on the shore.
I do not apologise for reminding the House once again that on Canvey Island, where 33,000 people have their homes, there is a massive concentration of gas, oil and chemical storage installations extending along the south-western waterfront. In the 1975 exploratory inquiry ordered by the Secretary of State for the Environment the navigational assessor, Rear-Admiral Evans, in finding for the objectors to oil refinery development, indicated that there was evidence of declining standards of navigational safety in the Thames. We can add to this the fact that every week sees the arrival at the methane terminal on Canvey of purpose-built tankers carrying 12,000 tons of liquefied natural gas from Algeria.
The Health and Safety Executive report, published in June, expressed serious doubts about the large amounts of liquefied petroleum gas and liquefied natural gas stored and transhipped at Canvey. Therefore, I want to see the tightening of regulations and the enhancement of the power of port authorities as well as the enforcement of compulsory pilotage. When considering the balance of argument in this kind of situation, and after weighing up the various interests involved—the oil and chemical companies, gas installations, ship owners


masters and crews, port authorities, pilots and, not least, the people who live in areas of risk alongside the narrow waters —there should be no question about it—the health and safety of people come first.
The possibility of a fire or an explosion on land affecting ships moored close by with dangerous cargoes or of a collision between such ships triggering off a chain of events involving land-based installations must not be ignored. It follows that effective steps should be taken to improve the handling of all ships without exception in our coastal and estuarial waters.
I repeat that the Bill does not grasp the nettle of compulsory pilotage, which should be the rule for all vessels, whatever their size, carrying noxious and dangerous cargoes in our coastal waters and estuaries. It merely places a duty

on the proposed commission to ascertain whether pilotage should be made compulsory. Left open, therefore, is the question of how quickly it can be introduced.
Moreover, the Bill as it stands is ineffective when it comes to the issue of pilotage certificates. I submit that the Bill should be reflecting the need for a pilotage service which maintains the highest possible professional standards and is wholly independent of shipping and commercial interests, and it does not do so. In the narrow waters, the safety of ships, their crews and the communities living close by should be the paramount consideration.
It is clear, therefore, that the Bill will need amendment in Committee. This is a marvellous opportunity for us to do something about a state of affairs which has been crying out for action for many long years.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am concerned with the Second Reading of this Bill because in my constituency are based one of the largest pilots' organisations and one of the busiest port complexes in the country. My interests, therefore, are divided between the pilots and shipping, and I regret that we have not had separate Bills for pilotage and for shipping, because we shall have to pay careful attention to the detailed aspects of both these important subjects.
The shipping interests in my constituency are mainly cross-Channel. Naturally, I want to see the conditions of employment at sea the same as for employment on land. I welcome what the Secretary of State said in this respect. However, I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who said how important it was that those conditions were backed by ensuring that the tax involved was comparable with the tax paid by other foreigners with whom we were competing. This is one of the problems in shipping. The tax that we pay on our ships and the tax paid by the men who work them in no way compare with foreign rates. This is one of the reasons why we are not nearly as internationally competitive as we should be.
There has been a great deal of controversy about the background to the Bill. I refer particularly to the proposals and counter-proposals for compulsory pilotage and the broadening of pilots' certificates following our entry into the EEC. The fact that the White Paper is entitled"Action on Safety and Pollution at Sea"underlies the importance of these factors in relation to the Bill as a whole.
But the biggest controversy in the background to the Bill has concerned Trinity House. At one stage, it was proposed that it should be abolished altogether. I am glad that that proposal has now been got out of the way. In this regard, at least, common sense has prevailed over some of the more radical proposals put forward originally.
In my view, it is always cheaper and wiser to reform an old and ancient institution than to be radical and create a new one. My fear is that in creating a new one we do not know how much bigger it will become. Following the pres-

sure brought to bear upon it, I am sure that Trinity House has reformed itself. I take the view that if we were wiser we would build on Trinity House and not create a new quango with all the additional cost that it may bring with it.
I ask hon. Members to consider what happened in the case of the National Ports Council. It started in a small way, but it now costs £1 million a year. Pilots need the money for the tools that they use. Recently, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) visited Harwich, where I welcomed him, and I listened with considerable interest to his speech tonight. He and I travelled on a pilot's cutter, and we learnt that a modern cutter cost £2 million. The present cutter is an old one. Surely, we have to use all resources carefully. I fear that we are creating a new body that will not fulfil the task that the old body has fulfilled very well. I hope that we shall look carefully at this matter in Committee.
I should like to add a word about compulsory pilotage. Of course, we have to do all that we can to get compulsory pilotage. Without it, we shall not obtain the safety at sea that we need. We have to realise that the European Community is progressing far more quickly than we are. We are pulling back. I do not know why. Possibly, it is because of lack of financial resources. Germany is now making pilotage compulsory. Holland is making laws on dangerous cargoes.
Legislation before the Community on deep sea pilotage is considerable. Minimum requirements are being made for tankers. There are proposals for the safety and carriage of oil and chemicals. We seem to be lagging with more lax methods of pilotage, while the Continent, aware of all the dangers, seems to be moving much more quickly. The question must be not whether compulsory pilotage should be introduced but, as many of my hon. Friends have said, when it is introduced. As the representative of a port constituency, I am concerned about dangerous cargoes in ports. It is vital that there should be a pilot on board when dangerous cargoes, whether chemicals or oil, come into port.
The head of the Harwich conservancy board has written to ask me why we should reform the 1913 part of the Act.


It has worked perfectly well in the past and should work perfectly reasonably in the future. I am glad that the Government have retracted some of their views on pensions and intend to do all that they can to help. The pilots, many of them friends of mine, are good, independent people who want their self-employed status maintained. To make them salaried —this is one of the difficulties of changing from Trinity House—instead of self-employed will undermine their independence.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is salaried and he is independent.

Mr. Ridsdale: I should be more independent if I were not so salaried.
I want to keep my speech short, but there are many points that I shall want to deal with in Committee—the designation of a second pilot, the number of pilots needed, the refusal of pilotage certificates and their extension, and the exemptions of tugs and crafts in harbours. I should like to deal with the safety of pilots getting on to ships. There have been some tragedies recently. A pilot getting on to a ship at Falmouth lost his life. It was a foreign ship and a ladder was put down. It was obviously an unsafe way of getting on to the ship and the pilot was killed.
We have been lax, or not tough enough, in pressing safety regulations on foreign vessels in our waters. The Norwegians and the Scandinavians have been much tougher. On the Danish vessel"England ", which used to operate into Harwich, our pilots went up a difficult structure very skilfully. But when it got into Norwegian waters, the Norwegians said"You put a door in the side of the ship ", and it was done. We have to see that those things are done much more quickly or we shall lose more lives, because the design of some foreign vessels makes difficulties for pilotage.
In general I welcome the Bill. I hope that we shall think again about this commission to see whether we can build a little more on the Trinity House structure. On the whole, however, anything done to improve the safety of ships at sea and the working conditions of seamen and others is very welcome, although I am sure that we can improve the Bill in Committee.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: The Bill has been welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The Committee of Selection will have no difficulty in choosing, from the wide number of experts who have spoken, hon. Members to serve on the Committee. They will then have the opportunity to put their ideas into effect.
The Bill covers perhaps too many good subjects—pilotage, pollution, safety and discipline. I want to deal with one area. I cannot claim the wider knowledge of some hon. Members, but I have been involved over the years in financial shipping matters. One clause is peculiarly out of step with the rest of the Bill. That is clause 31, which appears to relate more to the acquisitive instincts of the State than to the general well-being of the merchant marine.

Mr. Ogden: I do not want to raise the hon. Gentleman's hackles, but nothing in the clause says that the State will take these things over. It simply says that the State will help private enterprise to protect itself from overseas predators.

Mr. Dodsworth: I am grateful. I shall be coming to that. I accept that there is a prohibition element in the Bill. That is the power—he called it a reserve power —that the Secretary of State seeks.
At first sight, this sort of intervention is an everyday sort of Government activity. Shipping is an international activity involving national interests and we should have confidence in our own owners and our own industry. We should give them the duty of defending their interests. That is their obligation. They may occasionally need support, but that should be their option. The State should not take action without the discretion of the owner.
The clause gives the Secretary of State a right of judgment in regard to corporate entities as well as individuals. It suggests that it goes beyond companies to assets and liabilities, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said, would include individual ships and assets. Someone may occasionally feel that that is proper, but this is not a widely understood intention of a Bill of this kind.
When we talk of shipping, we are talking not only of these remarkable assets on 24-hour duty, with consequent huge personal responsibilities put on individuals. This is also a highly capital-intensive industry. It is not surprising that it is focused largely on London. Clause 13 puts in jeopardy some of that activity and the consequent strength of our resources.
Compared with the United Kingdom. the United States can be regarded in capital terms as a substantial competitor, but it has a very small commitment to foreign shipping, and that is what we are talking about. In proportion to their other industries, Greece and Norway have a greater commitment to shipping, but virtually no capital. Hong Kong is big in shipping and is developing its capital resources, but in some ways it is isolated by nature. Tokyo is large in shipping and large in capital, but its activity is predominantly Japanese. We in London are international. It is that status which I seek to support and serve.
There is a long list of reasons why shipping is an international activity focused on and based in London. That is a position to protect. Our maritime law is held in the highest possible regard. The structure of our legal system, the method of our insurance operations and the way in which our sale and purchase market works provide massive support to the shipping industry. The chartering activities based in London are also internationally recognised. That is the world centre.
I have said that I have an interest to declare. As a director of a bank. I have been involved over the past 10 years in shipping finance transactions. It has been a great privilege to work in that area. As a team, we have all made a contribution to the United Kingdom's balance of payments. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the size of that contribution.
When we talk of employment, we should bear in mind that in the City of London the jobs of 300,000 people are at stake. Shipping is a fundamental part of the City's activities. Those activities are inter-related, and anything that threatens our international role and reputation puts them in jeopardy.
It was a surprise to all of us to see clause 31. It was not foreshadowed in the White Paper. It is a new thorn among the roses. We all recognise that there are qualities in the Bill, but this is out of step with and alien to the rest of the Bill. It seems almost to have been slipped in as an afterthought. One wonders about the circumstances in which that happened. No doubt we shall later have the opportunity to learn in more detail why the clause is considered to have merit. Recent events suggest that the Secretary of State already has sufficient powers to cope with any problems.
I believe that the clause contravenes article 7 of the Treaty of Rome, which says:
 discrimination on grounds of nationality shal: be prohibited.
I believe that we shall have to address ourselves to this matter. Although it may be that in European terms we can accept the clause, it is a matter of great concern outside the European area.
What constitutes"the interests of the United Kingdom"is a matter of judgment. I very much doubt whether the Bill gives Parliament sufficient control over the Secretary of State. The annulment procedure is to be adopted. We heard only today at Business Question time about the unsatisfactory nature of that procedure. When prayers are tabled we are still unable to have the opportunity for debate. That does not seem to me to be a satisfactory way of dealing with a matter as contentious as this. If the provision is to be in the Bill at all—and I think that it should not be—it should be subject to the affirmative and not the negative procedure.
The clause proffers no identifiable benefit to this country. It represents a chill factor for the industry. The telephones have been ringing today and the telex machines have been going, asking for details of the clause. The requests have come from all over the world. People want to know how it will affect their existing investments in this country and how it will affect their plans. We should neither allow nor encourage that situation. We should encourage our world competitive position.

Mr. Ogden: Why did these bells not ring last week when the Bill was published? Did nobody know about the


publication of the Bill? Was it not announced? The Times and The Guardian were printed that day.

Mr. Dodsworth: That is a surprising question. The hon. Member does not comprehend the need to distribute information across the world about a Bill of this nature. He does not comprehend that the Stationery Office has been on strike or involved in different degrees of industrial non-action since September. Over 250 statutory instruments are still on the Stationery Office shelves because they have not been distributed since September. It should not come as a surprise to discover that shipowners all over the world are finding out about it through the publicity. It takes time for newspapers to arrive in foreign lands. Communications take time. Consultation on such matters is intense. I am sure that it will take place. I am sure that we shall have the benefit of it in Standing Committee.
We are considering a Bill which has no benefit. It is a Bill of disadvantage and contrary to article 7. There is a dubious procedure for the House. For those reasons, whoever serves on the Committee must give it close attention.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: It has been a really interesting evening. One cannot always say that after one has sat in the Chamber and listened to speeches, but I have learned a great deal tonight. The Committee will be equally interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) has a particular experience and he illustrated that almost all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have some interest based on either a working or business experience.
Mine is a constituency interest. My constituency is nowhere more than five miles from the sea. The Solent is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. There are rivers and small fishing ports in my constituency. Many pilots live there. Above all, there is oil, and the threat of more of it.
The Bill is really five Bills in one. One must choose which parts to discuss. I shall devote most of my remarks to clause 20, which deals with pollution. I promise the Under-Secretary of State that I shall

not weary him with any of my oft repeated comments about Warren Springs laboratory. There are other more important issues which are dealt with in the Bill.
I hope that I shall not be out of order if I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) to the Front Bench. He has not left his place for one moment. I have known him for many years. Our connections go back to Bristol, another great maritime city. We look forward to working with him in Committee.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) rightly said that pilotage and pollution are inter-related. A number of hon. Members have said that human error causes most of the accidents at sea. But we all know that it is not necessarily the headline-catching accidents which cause all the pollution.
We all agree that one way of reducing accidents at sea is to increase the spread of the pilotage service. Accidents such as that involving the"Christos Bitas"would not have happened if that ship had had an experienced pilot on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Mr. Trotter) said that this was the first legislation since the 1913 Pilotage Act which did anything about pilotage. Those were the days of steam, and sail was still much in existence. The word"tanker"had hardly been invented."Tankers"were converted cargo ships. Most of liquid cargo was carried in drums. Obviously, therefore, it is not before time that we are considering such a Bill as this.
Everybody defers to the knowledge of seafaring matters possessed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He warned of the possibility of the pilotage commission being a quango. That has obviously occurred to anybody who has read the Bill. But my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) dealt competently and capably with the hon. Member's intervention. Perhaps both Front Benches could give a categorical guarantee that no failed or defeated parliamentary or local government candidate of any size, shape or description will find his way onto the Commission.

Mr. Prescott: Or civil servants.

Mr. Adley: I would not want to be so rude about civil servants. The commission must be a body of experts drawn to the commission purely and solely for their experience.
I turn now to compulsory pilotage. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich referred briefly to the German legislation. As I understand it, the Germans have passed legislation which requires all tankers of 300 gross registered tons or more with a cargo with a flashpoint of more than 68 to be handled by a licensed pilot within 30 miles of the German coastline. If that is so, it is a radical departure, but it is not much more radical than the recent EEC directive, dated 22nd September this year. Article 1 states
 Member States shall take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that oil, gas, chemicals tankers of 1,600 gross registered tons and over—whether fully or partly laden—including empty but not yet de-gassed oil tankers entering or leaving the sea ports of their territory will, as a minimum "—
and then it lists a range of actions required, of which one is—
 make use of pilots.
The trend there and in Germany. therefore, is clear. Perhaps we should move to bring ourselves into line with what is being done on the other side of the Channel and the North Sea—I applaud their initiative.
The costs of pilotage will not be a direct cost on the taxpayer, but before we clamour for compulsory pilotage we should recognise that it will be expensive and time consuming. It takes seven years to train a pilot, so even if we were to introduce compulsory pilotage with this Bill, there is no way in which we could find enough experienced, skilled and trained manpower to put it into effect in much under 10 years.

Mr. Prescott: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. I am informed that a number of shipping companies envisage a reduction of skilled manpower among officers. The pilotage people tell me that these men would be available for such work. The cost of that would be considerably cheaper than to put right the effects of pollution disasters.

Mr. Adley: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. His first point would depend upon the level of

retraining, as opposed to new training, that was required. I am advised by pilots in my constituency that a seven-year course is necessary to acquire a pilot's licence.
I am perhaps the only Back Bencher present tonight who participated in Monday's pollution debate. I do not want to repeat now what I said then, but I wish to deal with clause 20 and the general question of oil pollution.
If the quantity of paper that has been provided to hon. Members on oil pollution were a measure of this country's ability to solve the problem, we should have had it solved. We have been showered with paper from all sources. If words could solve the problem of pollution, it would already be solved. Yet it is one thing to pass legislation; it is another thing to get it agreed among our international partners; and another again to make sure that that legislation is effectively carried into effect. Clause 20 makes one realise that this Bill is a piece of enabling legislation. At this stage it is not much more than that.
I wish to ask the Minister a question which I put to him on Monday evening and which he then did not answer. Does he believe that he has adequate powers to deal with those who pollute the sea and shoreline? Does he think that this Bill will give him all the power he will need—not just in the weeks or months ahead, but in 20 or 30 years' time? It will be many years before we have another piece of legislation of this magnitude.
Will the Minister be resolute in using the power which will be open to him? The target date for the implementation of much of these provisions is 1981, and even then many of the requirements will not be applied unless there is international agreement all round. My view is that this is not acceptable. If we are to have to wait interminably until every country has ratified all these conventions and agreements on pollution, what is certain is that there will be a great deal more pollution before there is a great deal more done in the way of effective action.
I believe that the French were justified in their determination to get on their statute book some hard legislation which can be argued about at a later date. After the"Amoco Cadiz"affair, they were


unwilling just to sit around to await the deliberations of interminable committees and while scores of countries were cajoled into legislation. Representing as I do a coastal constituency, I believe that it is not satisfactory to pass legislation and thereafter rely on the good will of a large number of other nations before we are able to implement it.
Let me examine what has been going on in terms of the legislation that is already on the statute book. In 1971 we passed the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act, and we could be excused for thinking that that Act would do what it said it would do. But in 1977 there were only 58 prosecutions for the unlawful discharge of oil during the year by harbour authorities for offences committed in ports, and two only by the Department of Trade for offences at sea. A total of 56 of the harbour authority prosecutions as well as the two Department of Trade prosecutions resulted in convictions; 19 convictions related to offences by United Kingdom-registered ships and 32 to offences by ships of foreign flags. The remaining seven convictions concerned discharges in installations on land. The fines imposed totalled—and it is not a monumental figure—£76,076.87p, from which 10 awards totalling £7,879.79p were made towards the cost of removing the pollution. That does not give me confidence in believing that we have anything like sufficient powers or enough surveillance at present under the 1971 Act. The sum of money levied in fines in 1977 was lower than it was in 1975—in a word, peanuts.
The courts will levy fines in accordance with the relevant legislation. This is why I find clause 20(2)(f) wholly unacceptable. I was delighted that the Secretary of State for Trade said that he intended to increase 50-fold the £1,000 figure on summary conviction mentioned in that clause. Personally, I find even this far too small a sum.
I should like to press and probe in Committee the idea that I have put to the Secretary of State earlier—namely, that we consider minimum fines rather than maximum fines. Is not it about time that we were prepared to take into account what is done by other countries and consider whether we can learn from them? A grossly inadequate fine is no

way in which to deal with what the Bill describes as"any one contravention"if that one contravention is an"Amoco Cadiz ","Eleni V"or"Christos Bitas" or if it is a deliberate tank washing exercise.
The Under-Secretary of State told us on Monday night that what we have read in the newspapers is true—namely, that when there is a major spillage oil-tankers rush to the scene and deliberately wash their tanks. If that is taking place, that is a serious, deliberate and provocative environmental crime. I do not believe that there is any fine too high for someone who does something like that.
I turn to the principle of"the polluter pays." It is not stated in the Bill but it is accepted by the Government as the principle to relate to oil pollution at sea. Until now the oil companies have made the rules. Now it is Parliament's turn. I do not think that we should jib at the job that the people of Britain expect us to do on their behalf.
Over the years the oil companies have demanded and built larger and larger tankers to provide themselves with cheap transport. That is fair enough. That is good economics. However, a larger tanker is a larger potential pollution threat. I am not satisfied with the Bill because I want to establish the principle under the heading"the polluter pays"that the owner of the oil is the person to be made responsible when things go wrong. If the owner is the person made responsible, he will take care that he charters or owns top quality ships. He will ensure that the qualifications of the master mariners, crews and pilots employed by him are of the highest. He will ensure that the crews have the necessary navigational skills. Until the owner of the oil accepts his responsibility of being liable for the pollution caused by the oil when things go wrong, we shall not get the problem solved.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to flags of convenience. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the topic on a number of other occasions. I quote two sentences from the June edition of Petroleum Economist which put the position into perspective far better than any words of mine. It states:
 Ships under the management of international oil companies fly flags of convenience


for one main reason only—the less onerous tax laws in force in countries like Liberia or Panama. From the companies' standpoint, income or corporation tax is a cost which reduces the profitability of operations; and all companies in this competitive business are engaged in a constant struggle to cut costs.
That is fine. Let us cut costs, but not at the expense of our precious coastline and our environment.
The French Government have shown that they have the will. As The Times of 26th October pointed out in a headline
 French will fine oil tankers up to £600,000.
I quote briefly from the article, which states:
 The French Cabinet decided today that any shipowner, fleet operator or captain convicted of causing pollution in French waters by releasing oil into the sea can be fined up to 5m francs …and imprisoned for up to five years. Courts will decide how long the ship can be impounded.
It also agreed that heavy fines and prison sentences can be imposed if navigation rules are broken.
Let us all get together and agree that we shall have international co-operation, but until we have that co-operation I am not prepared to abide by the cosy arrangement that means that all that we do is pass enabling legislation.
I end by doing something that may not be possible for some time—namely, quoting from headlines of The Times and The Sunday Times. I leave the message with the Minister that I want what the French appear to have, according to the headlines in The Times of 23rd November, which reads:
 Gendarmerie of the sea proposed by French to protect coasts.
The Sunday Times of 7th May refers to
 Cowboys of the main ".
If we do not have the gendarmerie, we shall continue to have the cowboys. I fear that clause 20 will not provide adequate coverage and protection for our coastline. I look forward to making further points in Committee.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt: This has been a wide-ranging debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, caused by the varied nature of the proposals in the Bill. We have had a large number of interesting and informed contributions.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill is both highly complex and. in parts, extremely technical. I should like to mention at the outset that I have received a large number of protests about the inadequate time given between introduction and Second Reading. This has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth). The Government just managed to comply with the letter, but certainly not the spirit, of the Renton Committee report. The Bill was just not available outside the House of Commons until last week, and it is no good the Government hiding behind the White Paper, because there have been several important changes from the original proposals. The Bill is a major piece of legislation and should have been dealt with properly.
Merchant shipping is a vital industry for this country. It has a magnificent record in providing a sound basis for the prosperity of our nation. There is the major net contribution made to our balance of payments of over £1,000 million, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), and emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price). British ships provide an economic lifeline for this country by carrying nearly half our imports and over half our exports. We have now the most modern fleet in the world, which has, thanks to private enterprise, the range and the resilence to take advantage of the upturn when it comes. But there is, however, no immediate prospect of a strong and long-lasting upturn in the world shipping industry, certainly next year.
Mr. Ronnie Swayne, the president of the General Council of British Shipping, spoke last week of the possibility of a shipping disaster being added to the shipbuilding tragedy. This possibility exists, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives pointed out, as a direct result of the Government's shipbuilding policies. I make no apology to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) for raising it once again. The subsidies given to encourage the building of vessels for which there is no commercial need are clearly prolonging the shipping slump. Instead of taking an international lead in seeking to rationalised the shipbuilding


industry, the Government have become world leaders in the credit race by offering cheap and easy credit to virtually anyone.
The problems faced by our shipping industry have been considerably worsened by the Government's willingness to subsidise our competitors. The Polish shipbuilding deal will destroy jobs in the shipping industry, as will the other deals apparently now being negotiated, where British-built and British-subsidised ships will compete directly with British-owned and British-managed ships. What a paradoxical absurdity.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunt: I wish that the Under-Secretary of State, to whom I shall give way in a moment, would use some of his new-found belligerence vis-à-vis the Russians against his colleagues in the Department of Industry.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not think that my colleagues in the Department of Industry are deserving of such treatment. But will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House whether he believes that it would have been right to reject that order when it was obvious that the order would be placed elsewhere on comparable terms, and that in those circumstances jobs would have been denied purposelessly to our shipyards?

Mr. Hunt: I should have thought that the Minister realised that, by placing the order here, the Polish Government clearly acknowledged that they could get better terms here than anywhere else.
The Opposition take much credit for the Minister's new-found belligerent pugnacity against the Russians. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and others of my hon. Friends have been urging the Minister for the last three years that we should lead the Community into a decisive stand against the Soviet maritime threat.

Mr. Prescott: Why?

Mr. Hunt: Because British shipping is able to stand up to any competition as long as it is free and fair, which the Soviet threat is not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh also mentioned certain other prob-

lems facing British shipping—the Soviet threat, the United States and the United Nations liner code. I do not want to take up time dealing with each of those matters, except to reiterate what he said—namely, that British shipping needs an open seas policy based on full and fair competition.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how the Government could take the action that he suggests against the Russian mercantile marine?

Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is right to point to what this country should do; but he will reflect that I said we should be leading the Community into action.
It is now nearly three years since the General Council of British Shipping produced a document"The Red Ensign versus the Red Flag ". That document clearly set out what kind of action should be taken against the Soviet maritime threat. We believe that had the Minister then taken the action that he talks about taking now within the Community, instead of prolonging negotiations with the Russian authorities, which we warned would be abortive, action would have been taken by now.
We then moved on to what I thought was an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). Clearly, he understands the problems and has spent some time going through the detailed provisions of the Bill. My hon. Friend mentioned that it lacks the clarity of the 1894 Act. But, as the Minister knows, the drafting has become unclear because the draftsman in the Department of Trade has got a little older since 1894 and he is not as good as he was. When one reads the Bill, one gets bogged down in cross references and technicalities. I hope that in Committee we can get down to the important issues without getting too encumbered in the red tape of the Bill.
The shipping industry faces major problems which were highlighted by my hon. Friend. I thought that he was right to reiterate that prevention was far better than cure.
It will not have escaped the Minister's attention that much of the debate has been devoted to pilotage. Several hon. Members


mentioned that the law relating to pilotage, which is founded on a 1913 Act, is both complex and lengthy. I find it surprising that the Government did not consider pilotage sufficiently important to merit a separate Bill to amend and consolidate pilotage law.

Mr. Prescott: The Tories have had the majority of years in Government since 1913.

Mr. Hunt: I want to come to what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I warn him that I have a mind to go and see his constituents, many of whom are fishermen, to point out how he differentiated between gentlemen and fishermen. I shall come to that later.
I agree with the right hon. Member for the Western Isles, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and others of my hon. Friends that there should be a separate pilotage Bill. Pilots are remarkable men who perform a public service with great expertise, and often at considerable personal risk. Throughout the debate, their independence has been emphasised and welcomed by many of my hon. Friends. I should like to deal with that for a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said that he looked forward to a class of salaried pilots, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) talked of maintaining their independence. This issue needs to be clarified in Committee. When one reads the Bill's confusing provisions, one finds it very difficult to know exactly what the Government intend. Under clause 11 there is power for local pilotage authorities to employ pilots licensed by the authority. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) pointed out that the clause 4(2) would, by the very nature of its drafting, allow the pilotage commission to employ pilots, as well. We need to decide exactly what we want and what the pilots want. I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich. It is important to preserve the independence and the independent authority of pilots.

Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of it, but a committee went into this matter. Before

it there appeared a number of organisations, two of which particularly represented pilots. One of them argued for salary status, and the other argued for self-employed status. So the pilots themselves are somewhat divided on the issue.

Mr. Hunt: I had a most interesting day earlier this week when I was very kindly invited to Transport House to listen to the debate on employment or self-employment that was taking place in the marine pilotage branch of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I am aware that there is some difference of opinion. But what we must decide in determining what we allow in the Bill is whether we should give the pilotage commission power to employ pilots—we must go into that very carefully—as well as giving local pilotage authorities the power to employ pilots.
We have heard a number of important contributions concerning compulsory pilotage. It is a fact—his was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East—that the Bill has failed to grasp the nettle. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East was referring to the standing committee on pilotage. One of its recommendations, inter alia, was recommendation no. 8, which says:
 The existing requirements for compulsory pilotage are anachronistic and need review in the light of present-day risks. We recommend that, as a general principle, pilotage should be compulsory subject to carefully considered local exemptions for areas, small vessels and experienced personnel where these can safely be given and certain general exemptions.
Having got that recommendation, there is also support from the pilots themselves. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to a very important resolution passed yesterday by the United Kingdom Pilots' Association. It says:
 this Conference in supporting the need for new legislation requires the legislation to reflect the original SCOP recommendation of compulsory pilotage as a general principle in our ports.
Having looked at those particular arguments, I must admit that one should not get carried away with the idea that compulsory pilotage is the answer, because knowledge of the ship itself is just as important as knowledge of the area.
However, I accept what many of my hon. Friends have said. There is concern about certain of the older foreign


ships in the approaches to our ports, and particularly in the Thames estuary. There is also the need to emphasise not so much the size of the vessel but the cargo that it is carrying. Here I would refer to the German example highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich. I have with me the German document just issued by the Federal Ministry of Transport, which shows the way that the Community is moving. This directive, dated 4th July 1978, says:
The introduction of compulsory pilotage for ships carrying dangerous cargoes is a further step towards greater safety in the heavily used waters round the German coast.
The Community is moving in that direction. We have a right to expect the Minister to indicate to us tonight, as so many hon. Members have raised the matter, exactly where he sees the Government's policy on compulsory pilotage. I believe that the Government have ducked the issue, and I hope that he will respond to this in particular when he replies.
There have been a number of other points about pilotage. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich is well informed on pilotage matters and I pay tribute with him and to Trinity House for all that it does in this area, and the leadership and expertise it brings to bear—he referred to the safety of pilots getting on ships. When we come to Committee, I think that we should consider that and, indeed, consider making it an offence for vessels not to have a safe means of access for pilots.

Mr. Prescott: It is.

Mr. Hunt: It is not at the moment, as I understand it. It is certainly not in this Bill. A safe and proper means of access must be provided for pilots.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich went on to talk about Trinity House. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight also referred to that great institution. There is the question of whether Trinity House could have done the job itself. Why, therefore, do we set up this quango? Although I have some sympathy with that view, it is important to remember that the recommendations on pilotage contained in the Bill are the result of intensive negotiations and consultations and come to this House as an agreed set of recommendations.
Having said that, I must say that there are a number of points in relation to this quango—the Minister must expect some scepticism from Opposition Members on the creation of yet another quango—which I should like to raise and reiterate. First, the Secretary of State said that he wished to preserve an important balance among all the various interests. But it was pointed out by several hon. Members that under the Bill as at present drafted clause 1 is very woolly. There is provision for at least one of the pilotage commissioners to be a licensed pilot, but only one. It could be one in 15. There is also—and this has changed from the White Paper—a provision that there should be other persons having a wide experience as shipowners or in the management of ships, pilotage services or management of docks or harbours.
I do not believe that we should accept this clause as it is, because it offends against an important principle, which is that we in this House must not have to depend upon the discretion, indeed the vagaries, of the Secretary of State in maintaining that balance. I agree with those hon. Members who said that the balance must be written into the Bill. I believe that was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Western Isles.
This is not a new concept, because the London Pilotage (Amendment) Order 1978, which comes into operation next week, lays down exactly how that particular pilotage authority should be made up. Article 1 of that order says that there should be three persons from Trinity House, one person from the PLA, two persons appointed by a series of harbour boards, five persons representative of ship owners and five persons elected by pilots, and so on.
I would have thought that a far better way of dealing with the composition of the commission in order to make it quite clear that a balance will be written into the Bill. Although the Secretary of State may promise to maintain such a balance, some of us would prefer to see this House of Commons stating exactly what that balance should be. I also know that there is a strong feeling among some pilots that they should be allowed to elect their representatives. I should like to know from the Minister whether he would like to encourage some of the pilots to nominate their representatives


or whether he will be taking his own decision as to which and how many pilots should be on the commission.
There have been references to whether the commission will be advisory or executive. This is very important, and the Secretary of State did not deal with it adequately in opening the debate. He said of the pilotage commission:
Its job is not to run the pilotage services.
When one looks through the clauses as drafted, it is not clear whether the functions will be wholly advisory.
Clause 4 (2) allows the Secretary of State to confer on the commission such functions as he considers appropriate. These are clearly not confined to being advisory. They could extend to a whole range of functions which he, in his own discretion, might give to the commission. That is not satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will describe exactly the functions that he has in mind for conferring on the commission under Clause 4(2). Clause 4 appears to be a mixture of advisory and executive functions while clause 6 seems to be wholly executive. We must get the mix right, or the commission will never function properly.
I turn to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, who sets a great example in fighting for the rights and safety of his constituents. He said that the Bill should move away from the question of size in determining the nature of pilotage and take more account of the cargo the ship was carrying. I have referred already to the way in which the European Commission is moving. This is another important general principle to which I hope the Minister will respond. Also I hope he will answer my hon. Friend's question about the restrictions that should be placed on dangerous cargoes in compelling some older ships, which do not have the necessary expertise on board, to ensure that they navigate these congested waters safely with the advice of a pilot.
I have tried to go through all the points that have been raised in the debate. Perhaps the major one for Members on this side of the House has been the need to look extremely critically at clause 31. This is a very important part of the Bill which was put in at the last minute. I do not know why this happened—perhaps

the Minister will enlighten us—but it was not in the White Paper. It is peculiarly out of step with the rest of the Bill as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West, who has considerable expertise in these matters.
Clause 31 gives the Secretary of State the right of veto over the commercial judgment of the company. It is no good the Government talking about the Furness-Withy case because there is an important difference between rape and marriage. The clause gives the Secretary of State the right to veto the marriage freely entered into by a board and its shareholders. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West was right to point out the international context of London, and the fact that 300,000 jobs are at stake in the world context of our shipping industry. Many people throughout the world are worried about this provision. Not only does it offend against the Treaty of Rome, as I am sure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is about to tell me—

Mr. Prescott: I am not a defender of the Treaty of Rome. The liner conferences which protect a lot of prices are also against the Treaty of Rome, but I do not hear any protests about them. I do not think anyone will say that they should be broken up.
When the hon. Member draws the distinction between rape and marriage and whether the marriage was freely entered into by the two parties, I wonder whether he considers that this is the clause which is concerned with the interests of the United Kingdom. If the two companies get together, even with the agreement of their shareholders, this does not mean that they have necessarily considered the interests of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for that speech. Unfortunately, however, the hon. Member has wholly missed my point, which was to define the international nature of British shipping. We cannot afford to take a restricted view. In fact a quarter of our ships are owned by subsidiaries of overseas companies.
The Opposition are very concerned about the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. It is not good enough for the hon.


Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) to tell us not to object to controversial measures because they are controversial. We do not. We object to this clause because it is wrong. It will, at best, be ineffective. and clearly it will do considerable damage to our international reputation.

Mr. Ogden: I do not wish to delay the hon. Member any more than necessary, because I suspect that at least one hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench wants to depart from this place and catch a train—I mention no names. But may we assume that there is a national interest? May we assume that we can agree what the national interest is? If the national interest conflicts with the commercial interests of any one section of the community, is it right for the Government of the day, of whichever party, to have the power to intervene?

Mr. Hunt: The Opposition have tried—

Mr. Ogden: Yes or no?

Mr. Hunt: It does not merit a"Yes"or a"No"answer. This is a very complex and difficult matter which does not give rise to a simple solution. But most certainly the solution is not to have this great hammer which is contained in clause 31, and we shall seek to remove it in Committee.
The hon. Member for West Derby referred to a small speech which I made for two and a half hours on an earlier occasion when he had tried to sink Liverpool's main claim to having a shipping industry, namely, the ferries. It ill behoves him tonight to try to represent himself as someone speaking on behalf of shipping when it was his idea on that earlier occasion to sink the famous Liverpool ferries.

Mr. Ogden: I will defend whatever I said that night. Despite the good wishes that I offered the hon. Member earlier, if he wants to stir it, we can stir it. Whoever sank or saved the ferries is another matter, but it was a little bit naughty of him to make that remark.

Mr. Hunt: I apologise but we must not get bogged down in constituency issues.
I should like to move on to the fishing industry. I felt that the hon. Members for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and Kingston upon Hull, East did not really do justice to the real requirements of the fishing industry. I happen to believe that there are large parts of this Bill which are drawn badly and which do not take fishing interests properly into account. It was wrong for the hon. Member for Grimsby to call it a"fishermen's charter ", because it is not. It does not take sufficient account of fishermen—

Mr. Prescott: That is what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Hunt: It was the paradoxical way in which he put first the one case and then the other which left me confused.
Referring to a moment to drink, the hon. Member for Grimsby kept talking about a"happy"ship. Indeed, the hon. Member for West Derby talked about a gay"ship.

Mr. Ogden: I was very careful what I said. Nowhere in any of my speeches in the House will the hon. Gentleman find those remarks. In present circumstances, that is not an honourable thing for the hon. Gentleman to say and I hope that he will have the decency to withdraw it.

Mr. Hunt: I was referring to the reference made to drugs on board ship and withdraw any other imputation. The Bill does not take account of the serious problems of drugs on board, whether on a happy or any other sort of ship. The The fishing industry and the British Shipping Federation, in particular, are very worried about the taking of unauthorised drugs on board. We must take account of this in Committee.
Many important matters have been raised in the debate and others have not been raised because hon. Members have not been able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I pay tribute to the constructive way in which the industry has approached the problems raised in the Bill and the way in which hon. Members have sought to highlight important areas of concern.
I trust that the Minister will respond adequately, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington whose important remarks about pollution were not answered in Monday's


debate. He has repeated them and they should be answered tonight.
We regret that clause 31 has been introduced at a very late stage. It is unnecessary, irrelevant to present problems and will do only more harm. With that important reservation, we shall do our best to treat this important Bill with the urgency it deserves.

11.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The debate has been marked by speeches from hon. Members who have a special expertise. Some have worked as seafarers and some have other connections with the sea. It has been a remarkable debate for that reason. I fear that I cannot claim the same expertise, although when my children were much smaller I took them in a motor boat on the lake at Regent's Park from time to time. I do not have any direct expertise.
I welcome the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) to the Opposition Front Bench for the first time in a major debate. He made a speech which, when he reflects upon it, he will recognise contained an unusually large number of bad points, but they were delivered in an agreeable way. I do not think that his remarks about the Soviet Union were an expression of his own thoughts. His judgment is better than that. He is a sort of political Muppet—a puppet manipulated by Maggie. That was not his better judgment, and we must acquit him of those thoughts. I shall deal more seriously with the Soviet threat later.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) were right, bearing in mind the progress made as a result of the Bill and other work, to regard the Bill as a charter. It is a charter for progress, but that fact was not captured by the remarks of the hon. Member for Wirral.
I pay a deserved tribute to the industry. The Bill is a product of the Government's working closely with the industry to promote legislation that will strengthen our Merchant Navy and help it to compete more effectively in a volatile and highly competitive market.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) pointed out, safer conditions represent an integral

part of our whole approach, as do all the major provisions of the Bill. One provision concerns pilotage, which we can debate at another time. Another provides a more up-to-date approach to discipline. There are also wider powers to investigate casualties, so that we can learn more from accidents causing serious injury but not necessarily loss of life, or when events occur which in my right hon. Friend's view could have led to a shipping casualty. In this way we shall enhance the already high reputation of this country in investigating casualties. Then there are the wider measures to safeguard our commercial interests, where admittedly there is some controversy.
The theme of all this has been to maximise co-operation among the Government, the owners and the unions, a process in which rich dividends have been earned. Highly controversial issues, all too often plagued by mythology rather than by informed reason, can be tackled successfully when people get around the table with the resolve to find sensible solutions. I have found in the last five years, almost, that, faced with the most divisive issues in the industry, with evidently little prospect of reconciliation, in the end one can achieve a near-unanimous view by this approach.
Three subjects come to mind. On discipline, who would have thought just a few years ago that we would have got two unanimous reports? As for the employment of non-domiciled seafarers, nothing could have been more divisive than that issue when I first faced it a couple of years ago. The original positions of the owners and the unions seemed absolutely irreconcilable.
On the question of pilotage itself, I acknowledge the role of the last Conservative Government. They also thought that in this connection at least there was value in people getting around the table and trying to work out solutions to difficult problems. It is this theme of co-operation that I have tried to encourage in the industry since 1974, when I was first charged with this responsibility.
I regret to say that it was not always so. One of the first things that I learned —I was saddened by it—is that access to Ministers under the last Conservative Government was somewhat one-sided.


The unions hardly got a look-in, except perhaps to be told that a decision had been made. I acquit officials totally of any responsibility in that direction. They have to be given a lead.

Mr. David Hunt: Mr. David Hunt indicated dissent

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. What conversations has he had with the unions to find out what the atmosphere was like between 1970 and 1974? I can assure him that it was the unanimous view of the trade union movement that they were given scant consideration. So we resolved, when we came into office, that in the best interests of the industry, there had to be greater equality of access to Ministers.
Both sides of the industry can make a powerful contribution, not only to resolving problems but in helping to develop policy, nationally and internationally. Disagreements arise from time to time, naturally, but is it not infinitely better that in vital international talks—when we go to the EEC or when a Minister goes to the Soviet Union to discuss these difficult problems—we speak with a united industry behind us?
Those have been our deliberate plans, and we have acted on them. Is it not far better, also, that owners and unions alike should share a responsibility for the moulding of policy, rather than be isolated and then put in the position of offering carping criticism from the sidelines?
If I have achieved anything in this job —I claim no miracles, and I know my station; I am an Under-Secretary of State only—it has been to put this process of consultation and ministerial accessibility into practical effect. I hope that it will never again be otherwise.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East for thanking me. It is not only for what he said that I thank him, but for his continuing help, particularly during my early days as a Minister, when he served in the Department under the then Secretary of State as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. There is no doubt that although he holds controversial views, benefit resulted from the tension that existed, in the establishment of different points of view from time to time.
My hon. Friend for Kingston upon Hull, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby spoke movingly of the problems of the fishing industry, and rightly called for a charter for fishermen. I want to put the matter in perspective. The Bill provides wider powers to make safety regulations which will apply to the fishing industry. I cite clauses 21 and 22. There is to be a new disciplinary regime, and not only in relation to drink. There are to be wider provisions on casualty inquiries that will relate to fishing vessels. That is especially important in that industry, where there are many personal injuries.
The limit on the amount of damages that applies to that industry, just as to the other, is to be removed. But above all there is to be a report on the safety of fishermen at work, similar to the other report that we have already produced, which is another charter for progress. We hope to produce the report early in the new year.
I turn to the question of unauthorised drink. There is an undeniable need for powers on this matter. It was exemplified in the"Wyre Victory"case, in the investigation into that very sad state of affairs.

Mr. Prescott: By the definition in the Bill, what was involved in that incident was authorised drink.

Mr. Davis: It was alleged that the man in question had been rendered incapable of performing his duties by an excess of alcohol. My hon. Friend is partly right and partly wrong. If I quote from the report he will see why I say that. My hon. Friend spoke about the connivance of owners. The inspector said:
 It is the view of this court that the owners should give to skippers wholehearted backing if and when men are found with illicit drink on board. Any skipper who refuses to sail because some of his crew are intoxicated or because he knows or suspects that there is illicit drink on board should receive the full support of his employers. The skipper should not be allowed to feel, as some do, that if he refuses to sail he will be replaced by another skipper. His action in reporting any such incident should be applauded and not condemned.
That was the force of what my hon. Friend was arguing.

Mr. Prescott: Such a skipper would still be sacked.

Mr. Davis: Time and time again, unauthorised drink on vessels leads to that sort of problem.
I say no more about the question of unauthorised drink, but reiterate what my right hon Friend said—that there must be proper safeguards against abuse by the searchers. That is a matter on which we shall engage in consultation with the trade unions and others concerned.
My hon. Friend also referred to the deplorable diving accident and the question of dynamic positioning. I am sure that that will feature in the inquiry. For that reason, I can say no more about that.
I come to the question of pilotage. The hon. Members for Harwich (Mr. Rids-dale) and Wirral disagreed with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), in that they declared that this meant another quango. The Conservatives go on endlessly about quangos. It is a sort of knee-jerk response by the Tory Party. The Conservatives must be thinking of Lena Horne when they do this, only this time it is"The new-fangled quango ":"There's nothing to it. You just sort of stand there, and you just sort of say it." They just sort of say it as a substitute for policy, and do not reason. Those who look at the facts here must ask"What has this to do with quangos? "
All the interests concerned looked critically at the question of the central body, and all came to an agreement about it. It is financed not out of public funds but by shipowners who pay the dues. If they are satisfied, I agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives—it seems all right to me.
I now turn to the question of the functions of the commission. My right hon. Friend has power to extend the functions of the commission. It has been alleged that my right hon. Friend's functions are too sweeping. I believe—and ACOP was concerned about this—that the Bill should allow for changes that occur. Indeed, a number of hon. Members have been urging that the question of deepsea pilotage should be considered, and other functions have been mooted for the commission.
Pilotage legislation is a little infrequent. The last one was in 1913, and that was probably introduced in 1912. What we

have to do is not to engage in this sort of nonsense but to retain some flexibility to change the role of the commission in response to changing circumstances. That is what it is about.
I agree that there must be safeguards against abuse of the power. That is provided for in the Bill and we can go into the matter in detail later. It is subject to affirmative resolution, and I believe that it is inconceivable that the power will be exercised without extensive prior consultation with all the interested parties and with the commission itself.
The Bill envisages that there will be more compulsory pilotage. I urge hon. Members to look at clause 6(1)(c), where they will see the effect of that provision.
Now I come to the matter of deepsea pilotage—an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. We have not included provisions concerning deepsea pilotage. I shall not rehearse the practical problems that exist, but there are practical problems about it. We must be sure that we do not dilute the bridges of our merchant vessels by taking the masters and senior officers from those vessels and putting them into pilotage because we are anxious to respond to this problem.
There is a feeling in the House that compulsory deepsea pilotage may help to reduce accidents around the coasts. I am proposing to hold discussions with the shipowners, the pilots and the appropriate authorities to examine in more detail the practical and legal problems of introducing deepsea pilotage on a wider scale. At the same time we shall, of course, participate in similar discussions with the European pilotage authorities, because to make the provisions effective one has to seek an international solution. One cannot do this unilaterally.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East called for independence and a salaried service at one and the same time. He will have to sort that out. We may have the benefit of his views in Committee. I shall say no more about that.

Sir Bernard Maine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can dismiss the point quite like that. It is possible to have a


Crown salaried service which is independent of pressure from shipowners or any other interest. The point that I was making was that if one is to have effective pilotage one must have men belonging to a profession—the profession itself is self-regulating—who do not respond to pressures. It is not a point to be swept aside like that.

Mr. Davis: I an not intending to sweep it aside but I have a lot of ground to cover and I believe that the hon. Gentleman is not doing sufficient justice to the independence of pilots. I look forward 'to debating the issue with the hon. Gentleman, but he has raised an important point and he will recognise that in trying to make a half-hour speech—I have a little longer, but I intend to take half an hour—I cannot deal with it at length now.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) raised a number of points. I think that there is force in what he said about pilotage consolidation, but let us get the pilotage provisions set out here enacted and then we will talk about consolidation.
On the question of EEC nationals, pilotage certificates can be given only to EEC nationals on EEC-registered ships. The question of flags of convenience does not arise in that respect.
The idea of a Scottish pilotage commission was debated at length. The general conclusion was that Scottish interests must be represented, but it was thought not to be helpful in terms of safety to create an additional body. Let us see how the proposed system works and consider refinements later. In the meantime, perhaps, we should have ad hoc arrangements for Scottish pilots to channel their views to the commission if they feel that that is necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) posed an interesting question. He asked about homosexuality on board ships. He made a serious point. It is an issue that involves civil liberties. The present situation is inconsistent with the general law. But the burden of proof resides with those who say that the situation should remain as it is. This Bill was not the place to make the change. We were more concerned with urgent safety and mari-

time matters that require urgent legislation. The question of sexual offences is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The most recent indications that we have had from the National Maritime Board, on which both sides of the industry are represented, is that there is strong opposition to a change in law as it affects merchant seamen. We should consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Ogden: Within the terms of the long title, can this matter be raised in Committee?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend will have to raise that subject with the Chairman of the Committee. It is not for me to decide whether a subject is in order.
I turn to the international scene and the commercial question. I have been blamed for not making sufficient noise about the Soviet threat. I wish that other Ministers in EEC countries had responded to the lead that I was set before some of those who complained even entered the House. This is not the only threat. We are faced with many others.
I do not dismiss the threat that is posed in the long term by flags of convenience, but the Soviet threat is a more immediate one, in certain trades. Surely I cannot be blamed for the lack of response from other members of the Community. At conference after conference I have tried to persuade them not simply to play with monitoring when the evidence is clear already but to put our defences in order. At the end of the day I want an accommodation with the Soviet Union. I want to agree terms so that we can have an equitable basis for dealing with each other. The Secretary of State does not wish to wage an anti-Soviet campaign; neither do I. We want to protect our industry from the threat of predatory activities. We are determined to do what we can.
The hon. Member for St. Ives totally repudiated the liner code. He is on his own on that. The movement that we have made in the EEC is based upon the proposition that we do not believe that the cargo reservation provisions of the liner code, which were designed to support the justifiable aspirations of developing countries should be applied for the benefit of developing shipping countries which are in competition with us. We are saying that


we should not apply certain articles which are fundamentally offensive not only to us but to others who would find ratification under those conditions intolerable—notably the United States, with which we must co-operate. We do not want to promote protectionist strands which too often affect United States policy.
In the international sphere, IMCO must remain the corner stone of our policies. We must take every opportunity to buttress rather than diminish the authority of that organisation.
I come now to clause 31. I find it extraordinary how implacable the Conservative Party can be in its hostility—while in opposition, at least, and not necessarily in government—to a British take-over. If the National Enterprise Board exhibits an interest in a British company the Conservatives wax indignant about that, but they are totally infirm of purpose in terms of an undesirable foreign take-over. Their courage deserts them, and the hon. Member for Wirral even loses his will to be apathetic.
The impetus for this provision came not from the Government but, initially, from the shipowners, in 1975. They were worried about their share values and about the activities of foreign buyers.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Nonsense.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman cannot say"Nonsense ", because I was there when they came to see us. It is the hon. Gentleman who is talking nonsense. The shipowners asked us to take this action because they were at that time strongly in favour of the Government legislating to prevent undesirable foreign take-overs of United Kingdom shipping companies. I understand that now they have changed their view.
I am disappointed, because this reaction seems to be short-sighted. Governments have to take a wider view and account of the national interest in all cases where a company is in danger of falling under undesirable foreign control, not just when the directors decide to contest a take-over.
In practice cases are likely to be rare, but it surely cannot be argued that any voluntary sale of a shipping company to a foreign buyer would automatically be in the national interest. I stress, however,

that this is a reserve power which we expect to be used in only a few cases.

Mr. David Hunt: Why was this clause not in the White Paper, and why does the Under-Secretary not take advantage of the residual right of the Bank of England not to grant exchange control permission in individual cases.

Mr. Davis: The reason is that exchange control and the Monopoly Commission's powers are highly uncertain, and they were not aimed at this problem. I do not believe that they are adequate. I shall say quite frankly why this provision was not in the White Paper. We wanted to put it in but we had what was known at the time as the Lib-Lab pact. The Liberal Party threatened to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill if this clause were included. We saw the national interest in a different way, but we could not have carried the Bill in those circumstances. We intend to carry it now because I believe that others in the House are prepared to support us.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) again raised a number of points about our powers to deal with oil pollution. We already have powers under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act to give the courts adequate opportunities to impose heavy fines. The problem lies not with the legislation but with the refusal of the courts, hitherto. to take a sufficiently positive line here, but that discretion must reside with the courts, and we can only appeal to them to see the matter in a broader context.
We are widening the powers considerably under the Bill. I cannot prognosticate on the question whether we shall ever have sufficient powers to deal with every contingency, but these are wider powers than we have ever had. I believe that they will strengthen our defences against the problems that cause justifiable concern to the hon. Member and to other hon. Members on both sides of the House. Should they need to be amended at any time, I am sure that the House will view the matter with sympathy if a case is made out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) summed up the main theme of the Bill. He spoke from personal experience of the need for


better arrangements regarding the safety conditions of seamen. For almost the last five years this is what I have wanted to achieve most in government. I think that the Bill, if implemented, will enable me at least to realise that personal ambition—but, much more important, I believe that it will reflect well on the industry as a whole and make the industry stronger than ever before.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

MERCHANT SHIPPING [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make amendments of the law relating to pilotage it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of—

(a) making to the Pilotage Commission established by that Act loans up to an amount outstanding at any time of £500,000;
(b) paying remuneration or allowances to a member of a body established in pursuance of provisions of that Act relating to breaches of codes of conduct and contraventions of industrial agreements;

(2) payments in respect of expenses incurred by a person in complying with requirements imposed by a Department of Trade inspector or by a person having the powtrs of such an inspector;
(3) any administrative expenses incurred by a Member of the Crown or a government department under that Act;
(4) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which, under any other Act, are payable out of money so provided,

and to authorise the payment of any sum into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Snape.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,

That, in pursuance of the provisions of section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the maximum annual amounts

of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended by the said Act of 1948 and by the Resolutions of the House of 17th November 1955, 7th March 1957, 17th May 1961, 9th March 1965, 4th May 1971, 1st August 1972, 29th November 1974, 27th November 1975, 8th November 1976, 30th November 1977 and 6th December 1977, be varied as from 1st December 1978 as follows:

(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as so amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

" 1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £1,230 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £2,245 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £2,370 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £3,385 per annum, whichever is the less; "

(b) for paragraph 2 of the said Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph—

" 2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £615 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £1,630 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trusteees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,185 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £2,200 per annum, whichever is the less; "

(c) in paragraph 2A of the said Schedule for the words"the annual amount of any periodical payment"to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words—

" the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £615 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £1,630 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,185 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £2,200 per annum, whichever is the less ".—[Mr. Parker.]

MOBILITY HELP (MRS. MAUREEN TOWNER)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemp-town): I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the case of Mrs. Maureen Towner, of Whitehawk, Brighton, and her mobility problem.
Mrs. Towner is 23 and tragically contracted polio when only three months old. As a result, she has extensive residual paralysis, has little use of her arms and hands, and walks with great difficulty and relies on a wheelchair and a three-wheel vehicle. She spent her childhood at Chailey Heritage, trained as a typist and went into full-time employment. She married her husband, Ted, in March 1977 and they were fortunate to have a fine, healthy daughter born to them three months ago.
In June I received a letter from Mr. Patrick Phelan, who is the co-ordinator of services for people with handicaps for the East Sussex county council social services department, Brighton division. He used these words:
 It is generally agreed that Mrs. Towner is well adjusted to the limitations imposed by her disability and that within them she maintains an impressively independent way of life. By using her mouth and teeth for a number of tasks for which we able-bodied people use our hands and arms, she is almost completely self-reliant.
I have the greatest respect for Mrs. Towner. She is a lady of great courage and determination who has done everything possible to overcome the immense handicaps that she has faced in order to lead as normal a life as possible with her family. At present she has a three-wheel vehicle issued in 1976, and clearly its useful life is limited. But now she is, in effect, a prisoner in her own home. Five days a week, from the time her husband leaves for work in the early morning until he returns in the early evening, she cannot use that three-wheeler because, under the law, she cannot take her baby into that car with her.
What about her baby daughter Emma? We are talking not only about the future happiness and well-being of Mrs. Towner

but about another life, a young innocent life. What about Emma's future? What about her opportunities for full development and for a full life? Without some form of transport that Mrs. Towner may use with Emma, that young lady will face even greater disadvantages and difficulthan the family now faces. She, with her mother, will be a prisoner in the flat five days a week.
What will happen when the time comes for Emma to go to nursery school and so on through the school system? The difficulties and problems faced by the Towner family will be immense.
It was in April 1978 that Mrs. Towner contacted me and my correspondence began with the Minister. I made it clear in the correspondence that Mrs. Towner urgently needed a four-wheel car fully adapted for use by herself and Emma. In a letter of 9th May, the Minister wrote:
 Much as I sympathise, however, I am afraid that there is no way in which the Department can provide her with a passenger carrying vehicle.…You may recall that David Ennals announced in the House of Commons on 6th December 1977 the setting up under Lord Goodman of a new independent voluntary organisation called Motability. Motability is itself responsible for deciding how to fulfil its aims with the advice of the disabled and their spokesmen and the collaboration of the Department. One of Motability's aims will be to enable disabled people to have the personal use of a car by means of a leasing scheme ".
That seemed to offer some hope, so I began to make further inquiries. I came across a press release issued by Motability dated 15th June 1978. It bore the grand heading
 Disabled To Get First Cars In £100 Million Scheme.
It stated:
 Lord Goodman announced the start today of a scheme to be operated by a new organisation called Motability to assist disabled people to procure the maximum benefit for the new mobility allowance. The scheme being introduced enables disabled people to lease new cars through the new organisation which is supported by the Government.
The Minister used the following words:
 Today's announcement heralds an important further advance for disabled people.
That was encouraging and exciting, and I began to dig a little deeper. To my horror, I found that Motability would not be able to help Mrs. Towner. That was because Mrs. Towner was too disabled to


be helped. In a series of letters from Motability to Mrs. Towner, there were included the following paragraphs:
 The adaptations necessary to make a car suitable for your use would be so extensive that they would cause major structural alteration to a car, and this is not practicable when the car is leased.
In a further letter it was stated:
 At the end of the lease, the person surrenders the car and can apply for a new leased car. The cars have to go back on the market and this can only be done if the adaptations are relatively straightforward. Even so the car has to be restored to its original state and the cost of restoration paid for by the lessee.
That meant that Motability was unable to offer any help to Mrs. Towner. That was because the cost of adapting the car initially would be at least £1,000, and it was suggesting that in four years' time it would have to be readapted to its original state, which would cost another £1,000. The life of the car for Mrs. Towner would probably be between eight and 12 years rather than four years. A commercial concern virtually writes off the value of a car over four or five years.
We were in the terrible position that, because Mrs. Towner faced these grave disabilities, Motability was unable to help her, yet under the earlier scheme run by the Minister's own Department Mrs. Towner would have received a four-wheel car, it would have been adapted by the Department and it would have been fully available to her and her family. I find this position quite incredible.
I hope and believe that the Minister will tell the House something tonight to show that this family is to be helped. The Minister has a great record in the service of the disabled, and I appeal to him. He is a very humane man who has devoted a great deal of his parliamentary time, work and effort during the years he has served in this House to work for those less fortunate than himself. I am sure that he sees the strength of this case. I believe it is a very rare one. I look to the Minister to use every opportunity available to him—all the influence and all the authority of his Department—to give this family a chance.

12 midnight

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I listened very carefully and sympathetic-

ally to the speech with which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) opened the debate. His genuine concern for disabled people is widely appreciated in the House, and he is understandably seeking the best possible mobility help for his constituent. He is right to do this, and he has put his viewpoint with all his customary conviction and sincerity.
The hon. Member and I have been in correspondence about Mrs. Towner's difficult problem and I am glad now to have the opportunity to speak about her case in greater detail. There can be no doubt that her circumstances are very compelling. Moreover, the way in which she has risen to the challenge of severe handicap is both admirable and exemplary. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman that she is a product of Chailey Heritage. That is an institution for which I have long had the highest regard. It is a place which I have visited and know well. My regard for Chailey Heritage is further increased by Mrs. Towner's triumph over severe handicap. I am sure that anyone knowing of her problem would feel an immediate and natural desire to do everything possible to help her.
Fortunately, I believe that there is now hope that Mrs. Towner's problem can be solved. Indeed, I am optimistic that a solution can be found in the fairly near future. Before dealing with her case in any more detail, however, I must try to put it in the context of our general policy on outdoor mobility help for disabled people.
Until 1976, the main form of mobility help was the invalid tricycle. The old scheme had many critics and it would be wrong for anyone to paint too idyllic a picture of its provisions. For example, help was strictly confined to those who were able to drive. It was a scheme which did nothing for the disabled passenger. This exclusion was bitterly criticised by major organisations of and for disabled people.
The old scheme's exclusion of people who were too severely disabled to drive was described as a"cruel anomaly"by the chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. That is an organisation which brings together over 20 national organisations in the disablement field, including such major and


respected bodies as the Disabled Drivers' Association and the Disabled Drivers' Motor Club. The old scheme was also attacked for other very serious failings. One was the withdrawal of cars from young disabled mothers when their children reached the age of 14. Another was the rule that, under category 3 of the scheme, many disabled people had their vehicles taken away from them when they gave up work or retired.
In 1976 the mobility allowance was introduced, reflecting a new policy of cash provision to meet mobility needs. Cash provision is both more equitable—it goes to the driver and to the non-driver alike —and more flexible, in that recipients can use it in the way which best suits their particular needs. As the House knows, the introduction of the mobility allowance has been widely and warmly welcomed by disabled people and their principal organisations. They would, of course, like to see further improvements in mobility help, and so would I.
Yet we should remember how substantial are the improvements which have already been made. In the last full year before the mobility allowance was introduced, 50,000 people received help under the old invalid vehicle scheme at a cost of £13 million a year. The mobility allowance now stands at £10 a week and is being paid to 96,000 people. This figure excludes all those who have retained an old scheme benefit. The allowance will be inflation-proofed from November 1979. Under the terms of a Bill which is now before Parliament we shall allow an estimated additional 20,000 disabled women to receive the allowance. I refer to the 60 to 65 age group. By the end of 198081 our expenditure on outdoor mobility help is expected to be £89.7 million a year. That is seven times more than was being spent in 1974-75. When the allowance is fully phased in, we expect to have 145,000 recipients compared to the 50.000 who received help before its introduction.
The hon. Gentleman is, however, concerned with the problem of an individual disabled person, and I now turn to Mrs. Towner's case. She suffers, as we have heard, from the effects of poliomyelitis. She has an ineffective left arm and only very limited movement in her right arm. Her legs are affected to the extent that her walking ability is also severely re-

stricted. It was the limitation of her walking ability which entitled her to a three-wheeler under the old invalid vehicle scheme.
Mrs. Towner was supplied with an electrically powered vehicle which had to be modified extensively to make it suitable for foot steering. She used that vehicle for two years or so and then relinquished it. Then, to her great credit, in 1976 she asked whether she could be supplied with a petrol engined three-wheeler as she felt that driving such a vehicle was within her capabilities. Again, very extensively modified to allow her to control it with her feet, a petrol-engined tricycle was issued to Mrs. Towner in 1976. She has been using that vehicle without mishap ever since, and I have no doubt whatever that it has enhanced enormously the quality of her life. I have no doubt, either that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, within the bounds of approved arrangements, my Department has gone to considerable lengths, and rightly so, to help Mrs. Towner to achieve independent mobility.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Mrs. Towner now has a three-month old baby and, although her three-wheeler still gives her independent mobility, she cannot carry her baby with her in the invalid tricycle. To do so would contravene the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations.
The hon. Gentleman has correctly pointed out that, under the pre-1976 invalid vehicle scheme, certain limited categories of people could be issued with a car instead of a three-wheeler. These categories included a parent in sole charge for a substantial part of the day of a child under 14 years of age. I must emphasise that it is not by any means certain whether, if Mrs. Towner had had her baby before the old scheme ended, my Department could have issued her with a car instead of a three-wheeler. As the arrangements no longer exist, this point has not been tested. We do not know whether Mrs. Towner would have met the criteria, although I accept that it is possible that she would have met the criterion of sole charge. There is, however, another point which would have had to be considered, and that is whether she would actually have been able to drive a car. Like the hon. Gentleman,


I am assuming in this debate that Mrs. Towner could drive a car, but it is important to remember that we do not know that for certain.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that an exception to the present scheme should be made in favour of his constituent. I am sure he recognises that if that could be done, in equity the same treatment would have to be afforded to others. It is extremely difficult to draw a line round one group of people and say that they alone will receive a particular benefit. Before the arrangement for the issue of cars to certain three-wheeler users was stopped in 1976, 600 or more cases a year arose, and there was constant pressure to extend the categories of eligibility.
I am certain that to revert to the old scheme, with all its anomalies and failings, would be a wrong step to take. We cannot simply breathe new life into a scheme which was stopped nearly three years ago and which was, in so many respects, inferior to the present scheme. As I have already pointed out, the old scheme involved making invidious distinctions between people. There were those between the driver and the non-driver, and those between the vast majority who had three-wheelers and the minority who had cars. In this context, had Mrs. Towner been very slightly more disabled, so that she could not drive at all, under the old scheme she would have received no help at all. Some would say that an even more objectionable feature of the old scheme was that, while a parent in sole charge of a child could be issued with a car, it was withdrawn and replaced with a three-wheeler when the child reached the age of 14, or soon thereafter.
Rather than look backwards to a scheme which has now quite rightly been superseded, I hope that we can look forward to a new solution to the problems facing Mrs. Towner and others in her position. This is where the organisation Motability might help. Perhaps in a moment I can say a little more about Motability and the help that it can provide.
The hon. Gentleman's concern is with whether Motability can help his constituent. I have to make it clear, of course, that Motability is an independent voluntary body and that it would be wrong for me to interfere in its affairs. But both

as Minister responsible for the disabled and a patron of the organisation, I am naturally in close touch with Motability and I know that it is very sympathetic to the problems facing Mrs. Towner and others like her. It has concentrated its efforts so far o launching the leasing scheme, because in this way it can help most people most quickly. Yet there are considerable difficul'2s about providing through the leasing scheme the sort of car which Mrs. Towner would need. It would be a car requiring very extensive modifications, and an integral part of the leasing scheme is the resale of cars at the end of the lease. Clearly, a car for Mrs. Towner would not fit at all readily into such a scheme.
Motability now tells me that Mrs. Towner's case is exactly the sort of case that would lend itself to hire purchase rather than leasing. Planning of a hire purchase scheme is now well advanced and Motability expects to launch it in the early part of next year. For some people the hire purchase scheme, like the leasing scheme, will need to be supplemented by funds raised by Motability itself. This is why, although I cannot make any commitment for Motability, I was able to say at the beginning of my speech that I was optimistic. While Motability is already aware of Mrs. Towner's position, I have no doubt that it will study the hon. Member's speech tonight and will be anxious to help both his constituent and others in a similar position just as soon as it can. I hope that the hon. Member will find this new information reassuring.

Mr. Bowden: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I hope that he will pursue this very strongly with Motability, because I am sure that cases such as Mrs. Towner's are rare. Would it be possible for the Department to find a very small sum—I mean a very small sum—to help with the cost of the special adaptations which would be needed in the few cases involving cars of the type which Mrs. Towner would need?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the lion. Gentleman. It is difficult for me to go further tonight than I have done. 1 mentioned that although I am a patron of Motability, it is not for me to interfere in its affairs, but the hon. Gentleman can clearly draw encouragement from what I


have said. I am certain that his speech and what he has just said will be read with considerable care by Motability.
Before concluding this short debate I want to enlarge a little upon the mobility allowance scheme and the role of Motability. One of the advantages of the mobility allowance scheme is that it enables disabled people to make their own choice. Undoubtely, many of them want to use the cash that we provide to help to run a car. It is for this reason that Motability was set up with a great deal of help and support from my Department. Motability has already made considerable progress and deserves both our appreciation and respect. So far, it has concentrated on getting off the ground—or perhaps, more aptly, on the road—a scheme under which recipients of mobility allowance can not only lease a new car for three or four years but can have it serviced and maintained in return for their mobility allowance. Where the applicant wants or needs a more expensive car than the BL Mini 1000 manual, or requires adaptations to the car, the extra cost has to be met by an initial payment. Motability has launched an appeal to raise funds to help those who

cannot afford to meet this payment by themselves.
There is already strong evidence that the scheme is meeting a real need and is popular with disabled people. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on 21st November. The right hon. Gentle. man believes, as I and many others do, that Motability is doing a first-class job.
Finally, I think it fair to refer to a broader context still. In all, since taking office, the Government have increased spending on the disabled to £2,000 million a year, and this during a period of immense pressure on resources. While much more needs to be done—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is certainly the case—it is a record of achievement, particularly in terms of the growth of expenditure on outdoor mobility help. We shall be pleased to build on the progress that we have made as quickly as priorities and resources allow.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.